HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 99-221-CC� BOAR.D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 99-22i-cc
An Ordinance Relating to Amendment of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to
Designate Master Planned Locations for Major Industrial Development as authorized
under Chapter 36.70A.367 RCW.
WI�EREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into 1aw the
Growth Management Act (GMA) as contained in SHB No. 2929 (Washington Laws, 1990 1S` Ex. Sess.,
Ch.17), which was subsequently codified as, arnong other chapters, Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of
common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a
threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of
life enjoyed by residents of the state; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities in the state
to do some planning and the fastest growing counties, and the cities within them, to plan extensively in
keeping with state goals on: sprawl reduction, affordable housing, economic development, open space
and recreation, shoreline management, environmentally sensitive and natural zesource areas, regional
transportation, environmental protection, property rights, natural resource industries, historic lands and
buildings, permit processing, public facilities and services, and early and continuous public participation;
and °
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A RCW requires Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that meets
specified GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and
WAEREAS, upon public notice and hearings, the Board of Grant County Commissioners passed
Ordinance No. 99-158-CC on September 30, 1999, and adopted the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
(including all maps and technical appendices referenced and included therein); dated September 1999;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A.367 RCW authorizes Grant Counry, in consultation with cities, to designate
a bank of no more than two master planned locations for major industrial developments, such as
manufacturing or indust�ial businesses, outside of Urban Growth Areas (LJGAs) that (1) requires a parcel
of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (2) is a natural
resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land
upon which it is dependent; or (3) requires a location with characteristics such as proximity to
transportation facilities or related industries such that there is no suitable location in an urban �rowth area.
WHEREAS, said authorization under Chapter 36.70A.367 RCW terminates on December 31, 1999; and
WHEREAS, final approval of inclusion of a master planned location for major industrial development
shall be considered an adopted amendment to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, may be considered
at any time prior to December 31, 1999, and is not subject to the restriction related to annual plan
amendments of Chapter 36.70A.130(2) RCW; and
Grant Caunty Baard of Commissioners
Urdinance Na.
_ _ Page 2
WHEREAS, the Grant County Comprehensive Plan included a process for designating master planned
lacations for tnajor industriat developnnent as a Comprehensive Plan amendment, as authorized under �
RCW 36.70A.367; and
WI�Ei2EAS, an advisory cammittee identified, evatuated and ranked potential iocations for master
planned lacatians for major industriai development; and
WHEREAS, the advisary committee conducted a public workshop and received publio comment
regarding the poterttial sites; and
WH]ER.EAS, fallowing the public workshop, the findings and conclusions of the advisory commit�ee
were contained in a Site Seleotion Report (attached as Exhibit A) documenting the site evaluation process
and recommending four sites far consideration by the Grant County Board of Commissioners fox
designation as rnaster planned Iocations for major industrial developments; and
WHEREAS, an assessment (attached as Exhibit B} was made of Grani County's industrial land needs to
sustain economic development over the next 20 years, the capital facility and infrasirueture needs to serve
industrial Iands, and the financiai impacts of needed industrial Iands; and
WFIEREAS, said assessmeni concluded that insufficient amounts of land having characteristics desirable
for industriai develapme�t, such as parcel size and proximity to transpartation facilities, exist within
urban growth areas af the caunty to meet the projected demand over the next twenty years; and
WH�REAS, said assessment eoncluded that provision of public services, including water, wastewaier,
and transportatian facilities, to the sites proposed for designation as rnaster planried locations for major
industrial developrnents is feasible; and �
WHEREAS, said assessinent concluded that the praperty tax revenue anticipated to be generated by
industrial development together with other sources of funding, includiz�g local revenue, non-loea3
revenue, and developer financing, are suffieient to provide infrastructure required by major industriai
development; and
WHER�AS, a SEPA Environmentai Checklist (attached as Exhibit C} was prepared and Grant Caunty,
aating through its Respansible SEPA Officiai, made a det�rminatian of non-significance on December 14,
1999; and
WH�REAS, upon public notice, the Board of Grant Caunty Commissioners conducted an apen record
public hearing an I?ecember 6, 1999, in the Cornmissioners Publia Hearings Room to consider the
recommendatians of the advisary committee along with other publio comment pertaining to the
am,endment to the Comprehensive �'lan to designate no more than two master planned locations for major
industrial developrnents; and
WHEREAS, upon public notice, the Board of Grant County Commissianers canducted a closed record
public workshop on December 14, 1999, in the Cornmissioners Public I�earings Rootn where they
reviewed and considered the publio testinnony and written camment pertaining to the amendment ta the
Comprehensive Plan during their December 6, I999 open record hearing; naw therefcrre,
I'T IS HEREBiC ORT3�lCNED that the Board of Grant Caunty Cammissioners hereby amends the Grant
Cauniy Comprehensive Plan to designate tl�� fallowing location{s} as master plann�ci lacations for major
industriai develapment: �.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Site A — Wheeler East,
_�;� Site B— Ephrata Airport North,
Site C — Beverly Burke,
_X� Site D— Martin, each as defined by mapping attached as Exhibit D,
�� i�' �IJlt'�HEit O�AI1�D that in the event that either of the two master planned locations for
major industrial development identified above are invalidated or are found to be undesirable by industrial
development interests, the Board of Grant County Commissioners hereby amends the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan to designate the following location(s) as "alternate" master planned locations for
major industrial development:
_X Site A — Wheeler East9
� Site B— Ephrata Airport North,
_X Site C — Beverly Burke,
Site D— Martin, each as defined by mapping attached as Exhibit D.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that manufacturing and industrial businesses that meet the definition of
major industrial development under Chapter 36.70A.367 RCW may be located within the boundaries of
said sites(s) provided that the criteria of Chapter 36.70A.367(2) RCW are met.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the future land use designations as shown on the Future Land Use
Map of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan within the boundaries of said site(s) be removed and
replaced with a designation of "Master Planned Location for Major Industrial Development".
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that all prior policies9 ordinances, resolutions and/or regulations
rescinded and/or repealed by the adoption of this ordinance, including without limitation, the future land
use designations as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan within
the boundaries of said site(s), are hereby expressly revived in the event that this amendrnent to the Grant
County Comprehensive Plan is at any time hereafter declared in its entirety to be invalid or of no effect by
a reviewing body with jurisdiction, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.302(4).
BE IT I'URTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts all recitals
herein as findings of fact in support of this action.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the effective date of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan is
December 31, 1999.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance is applicable to development applications
determined by the County to be complete on or after the effective date of this Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners directs the Director of
the Grant County Department of Community Development: (1) to incorporate into the Future Land Use
Map of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan the master planned locations for major industrial
development designated by this ordinance; (2) to provide copies to the Department of Community
Development, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) and to other agencies as may be required by
law; and (3) publish a Notice of Action Taken in newspapers of record.
Grant County Board of Coirmmissioners
Ordinance No.
_ _ Page 4
PASSED by the Board of Grant County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata, Washingtan, by the
following vote, then signed by its rnembership and attested by iis Clerk in authorizatian of such passage
this 28th day of � Dacember-- , 1999.
� YEa4; � NAY; 0
B4ARD OF GRANT COUNTY COMMIS�IONERS
G1tANT COUIYi'I`Y, WASHINGTON
Tim
Ul..�`��� �'Cc� _
Deborah Moare, Commissianer
eRoy Al 'son, Commissioner
ATTEST:
.
Peggy �
Clerk of the Board
�
�
�
� AMENDMENT OF' THE
GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAIvt
TO DESIGNATE
MASTER PLANNED LOCATIONS FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIUNER5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grant County has experienced and will continue to experience population and employment growth
and accompanying development, resulting in competing demands for public facilities, services and
land uses, and is required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan and land• use regulations
pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
2. The Board of Grant County Commissioners passed Ordinance No. 99-158-CC on September 30,
1999, and adopted the Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
3, Chapter 36.70A,367.RCW authorizes Grant County, in consultation with cities, to designate a bank of
no more than two master planned locations for major industrial developments, such as manufacturing
or industrial businesses, outside of Uxban Growth Areas (UGAs) that (1) requires a parcel of land so
large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (2) is a natural resource-
based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land upon
which it is dependent; or (3) requires a location with characteristics such as proximity to
transportation facilities or related industries such that there is no suitable location in an urban growth
area.
4. No master planned locations for major industrial development were designated in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan.
The Grant County Comprehensive Plan included a process for designating master planned locations
for major industrial development as a Comprehensive Plan amendment, as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367. The process included formation of an advisory cornmittee to include representatives of
the Ports, interested cities, economic development agencies, the County, the Planning Commissio�
and other interested parties, to identify and evaluate potential locations and recommend at least two
areas to be designated. Selected major industrial developments could then be designated as a Plan
amendment prior to Decernber 31, 1999.
6. Designation of major industrial developments as authorized under the GMA will allow Grant County
to enhance attraction of new industrial businesses by providing a land base of suitable industrial sites
in advance of specific proposals to locate a business in Grant County.
7. An advisory committee was formed in October 1999, which identi�ed, evaluated and ranked potential
locations for master planned locations for major industrial development. The advisory committee
conducted numerous study sessions to review background information, data, reports, citizen and staff
recommendations, and exhibits. The advisory committee devised selection criteria and a numerical
rating methodology to evaluate potential sites. On October 28, 1999, members of the advisory
committee conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the potential sites and performed a visual
characterization and evaluation of site features, environmental constraints, land use, and access
issues. This survey taken togsther with review of public documents and best available data were used
to score and rank the sites.
Grant County Board of Commissianers
Findings of Fact
_ _ Page 2
8. The advisozy comrnittee, upon public natice, conducted a public warkshop on November 17, 1999 �
and received public comment regarding the potential sites. Following the public workshop, the �
i'indings and conclusions of the advisory comrnittee were contained in a Site Selection Report
documenting the site evaluation process and recdmmending four sites for consideration by the Grant
Caunty Board of Commissioners for designation as master planned locations for major industriat �
developments.
9. The advisory cammittee workshop natice was mailed to a list af mare than S00 individuals and
agencies, faxed to area radia stations and newspapers, and pubtished in the Calumbia l3asin Herald,
Grant County Journai, Royal Review, Goalee City News-Standard, Grand Coulee Star, Tri-City
Herald, Quincy Past Register, and Wenatchee VVorid newspapers.
14. In identifying, evaluating and designating rnaster planned locations for major industrial
develaprnents, consideration was given to the following:
• The efficiency with which the proposed Industrial Reserve and be provided with urban services,
especially water and sewer service, in the future;
• T'he i:mpact on th� re�ional �ransportation system;
• The protection of designated agricultural resource lands and criiical areas; and
• The potential of the land to suppart higher wage employment apportunities in an enviranmentally
sensitive manner.
l 1. An assessment was made of Grant Caunty's industriai land needs to sustain economic developrnent �'
over the next 20 years, the c�pital facility and infrastruciure needs to serve industrial lands, and the
�nancial impacts af needed industrial lands. 'The assessment included an evaluation of economic
conditions in Grant County, a forecast of indus�rial ernplayrnent far the next tweniy years, a farecast
of industrial land needed, and an inventory of industrial land use within the County. The assessment
estimat�d thai an additional 1,281 acres of industrial land is needed ta meet the demand through year
2018.
The assessment evaluated the requirernents of industrial development for water, wastewater disposal,
transpartation and public services, and inoluded a plan for developrnent af infrastrructure to serve
industrial development. The assessment eonaluded that provisian of public services, inc3uding water,
wastewater, and transportatian faeilities, to the sifies propased for designation as master ptanned
locations for major industriai ctevelapzrtents is feasible.
The assessment included an assessment af cost assaciated with major industrial development and
estimated praperiy tax revenue anticipated to be gensrated by said developrneni. T'he assessment
concluded that the praperty tax revenue antiaipated to be generated by industrial develapment
tagether with other saurces of funding, including local revenue, non-local revenue, and developer
iinancing, are sufficient to provide infrastructur� xequired by majar industrial development.
12. New infrastructur� as required to serve future. industrial develapment can feasibly be provided for
concurrent with said developm�nt.
13. The Cornprehensive Plan contains an econamic devalopanent element which provides a collective �
vision of the County's economic future. The gaats, poiicies and actians in the ecanomic development
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
_ Page 3
element are consistent with and support the goals of the GMA and the mission statement of the Grant
County Economic Development Council. An extensive inventory of land zoned or suitable for
industrial development throughout the county was prepared as part of the economic development
study conducted for the Comprehensive Plan (1998 Economic Profile of Grant County, Chase
Economics & Reed Hansen & Associates). The economic development element strives to ensure an
adequate supply of commercial and industrial sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding
businesses to locate or rez�r�ain in Grant County. The designation of master planned locations for
major industrial development will enhance %ster econornic development and further the goals of the
Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
14. A SEPA Environmental Checklist was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the non-
project action of designation of any of the top four rated sites. Estimates of the impacts of potential
future industrial development. At the time that future development occurs, Grant County will further
evaluate the impacts in accordance with SEPA rules, the Grant County Shoreline Management
Program, Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC, Resource Lands and Critical Areas, and other
pertinent regulations in effect at that time.
15. Grant County, acting through its Responsible SEPA Official, made a determination of non-
significance on December 10, 1999. A notice of determination was published in the newspapers of
record.
16. Although the designation of master planned locations for major industrial development assumes that
more development will occur in the future, the rate of growth should not have a significant effect on
the environment, including air and water quality. The environmental protections provided under the
goals and policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and the regulatory framework that has
been put in place by Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC, Resource Lands and Critical Areas, will
mitigate potential environmental impacts and protect critical areas and resource lands.
17. The Grant County Department of Community Development has initiated preparation of development
regulations and official zoning map conforming to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. In regards
to rnaster planned locations for major industrial development, the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and said development regulations will:
l. provide for buffers between major industrial development and adjacent nonurban areas;
2. provide for transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs; and
3. ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas.
18. Upon public notice, the Board of Grant County Commissioners conducted an open record public
hearing on December 6, 1999, in the Commissioners Public Hearings Roorn to consider the
recommendations of the advisory committee along with other public comment pertaining to the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designate no more than two master planned locations for
major industrial developments.
19. Upon public notice, the Board of Grant County Commissioners conducted a closed record public
workshop on December 14, 1999, in the Cornmissioners Public Hearings Room where they reviewed
and considered the public testimony and written comment pertaining to the arnendment to the
Comprehensive Plan during their December 6, 1999 open record hearing.
20. Board of County Commissioners and advisory committee meetings, hearings, and study sessions
requiring "legal notice" were advertised in the local paper of record pursuant to the requirements of
Grant County Board of Comrnissioners
I'indings af Fact
_ _ Page 4
RCW 36.70 and the Grant County Code. Copies oit�e �ite Seiection Report were broadly
dissenninated for public and agency review at no charge. All rneetings and hearings ta which the �
public was invited were conducted in an open foz�um. At hearings all persons desiring ta speak were '
given an opportunity ia do so. Pubiic testimany and written carrespondence was given full
consideration.
21. Interested persans were provided an ample oppartunity to comrnent on tha proposed amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan and an the SEPA Environmental Checklist during the public review process.
The appeai mechanisms contained within Grant County ordinances provide sufficient due process to
allaw iz�terested parties an opportunity to respond at a meaningful tirne and in a meaningful manner.
i ''
� �, �. � _-
i .i
�'LAN
SITE SELECTIOl�T �tEP(�RT
FOR DESIGNATION OF
,, i ! � i � � i , ! �
:
. i � , � • . � � �
� �_ � � � � � �
���
Proalx Cearns, Inc.
DECEMB�R 1999
TABLE Ci�` CUI�TENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT� ...............................................»..........................,.............,............,... ii
CHAPT�R i INTR{)DUC'TICyN ............................................................................................1
BA�KGROI:rND .......................................................................................................... I
R.EGULATORY AUTHURITY ................................................................................... l
PROCESS.....................................................................................................................2
PUBLIC PAR`I ICIPATI4N .........................................................................................2
CHAPTER 2 SITE IDENTIFICATION ............o .........................4...............,...,.......,.........,,.4
POTENTiALSI"TES .....................................................................................................4
SITEDATA ..................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 3 COMPARA.TIVE SITE EVALUATION .............................o.......................1 l
PURPOSE...................................................................................................................11
APPROACH.....................................................:.........................................................11
GENERAL SITE CH:t�.RACTERISTICS ...................................................................11
�ITIES ......» ..........................................................................................................12
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................13
T'RANSPORTATI4N & ACCESS .............................................................................17
SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND SCORING ...........................................................18
CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AIYD CUNCLUSIONS .....................d...,.a................,....o..........2Q
RESULTS...................................................................................................................2Q
MAJOR FINDINGS ...................................................................................................20
CONCLUSIUN.........< .................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC RESPONSE ....................................................................................22
Pi.TI3LIC COMMENTS ...............................................................................................22
SUIVIMARY................................................................................................................25
APPENDICES Appendix A
Appendix B
Appenciix C
Appendix D
Site Maps
Site Environmental Areas
Fublic �Varkshop Attendance List
Pubiic Camment
LIST OF Table 1 Site Data and Rating Summary ........................................................8
TABLES 2able 2 Site Ranking ...................................................................................18
Table 3 Composite Site Scores and Rank ...................................................19
LIST C1F Figure 1 Site Lacations ...................................................................................7
FIGURES Figure 2 Future Land Use Map ....................................................................14
Figure 3 PUD Priority Map .......................:..................................................15
Grant Caunty Major Industriat Developments December 7999
Site Selection Report i PCI
� � .�+c�No�v�E���M�����
+�
`The analysis surnrnarized in this report was conducted by representatives of an Advisary Committee,
Grant Caunty Planning Coznmission, Grant County Lang Range Planning Staff, and Proulx Ceams, Inc.
ADVISORY C4MIVIITTEE
Texry Brewer, Executive Dire�tor, Grant County Economia Development Council
Albert Anderson, Industrial Development Manager, Port of Moses Lake
John McMahan, Councilman, City of Ephrata
� Graig Jorgenson, Grant County PUD
Michael Stark, Mayor, Royai City
Eliiot Kooy, Mayor, Town of Georgel
Richard Pierce, Mayor, City of Moses Lake l
Judy Esser, Mayor, Town of Mattawa�
Ron Covey, Councilman, City of Mases Lake
Joe Gavinski, City Manager, City af Moses Lake
L,ori Barlow, Planner, City of Moses Lake
Ehman Shetdan, Gity Manager, City af Quincyl
Jim Cher£, City Manager, City of Ephratal
Patric Cor►nelly, Part of Quincy
Hal Hart, DCTED
Ed Allen, City Attarney, Town of ivlattawa
Roy Davis, Part af Rayal Slope
Gene McDanald, Port of Coulee City �
3ames Berscheuer, Port of Ephrata
Brian Kuest, Port of Quincy
Curt Marris, Port of Quincy
GRANT COUNTY PL.ANNING COMMISSIOII�TT
Jercy Dor�naier, Chairman
Gary Piercy, Vice Chair
A1 Bxower
Dave Dinges
Jim Flerning
Dwayne Ehr
Martell Palmer
Kirk Sager
Wayne Sahli
GRANi CULTNTY LC3NG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION
Dave Neison, Director
Scott Ctark, Depuly Director
Billie Sutnrall, Planner
` Notified and invited, but elected not ta participate.
Grani Caunty Mafor Industrial Developments December 1999 �
Site Selectian Report ii p�r
� CHAFTER 1
INTRODUCTI�N
BACKGROUI�ID
Designation of major industrial de�elopmenCs as
authorized under the GMA will allow Grant
Caunty to enhance attraction of new industrial
businesses by providing a land base af suitable
industrial sites in advance of specific proposais
to locate a business in Grant County. Appraval
criteria and a process for designation of master
planned resorts for rnajor industrial
developments are included in the
Coinprehensive Plan. However, no sites have
been designated. In addition, an extensive
inventory of land zoned or suitable for industrial
development throughout the county was
prepared as part of the economic develapment
study canducted for the Comprehensive Ptan.
In their ardinanae adopting the Comprehensive
Plan, the Board af County Camrnissioners
required that an advisary caxnmittee be formed
to identify and evaluate potential lacations and
reeommend at least two areas ta be designated
as MIDs. The Committee has been formed and
includes representatives of the Parts, citzes,
economic development agencies, the Caunty,
the Planning Cc�mmission and other interested
parties. Authority for Grant County to designate
master pla,nned laoations terminates on
Deeember 31, 1999, Selected major industrial
developrnents can be designated as a Plan
amendment prior to I?ecember 31, 2999, as
required under RCW 36.70A.367.
REG�CJI.�ATtJRY AiJTI30RITY
Under RCW 36.70A.367, Grant Caunty, in
consultation with cities, is authorized to
designate a bank of na more than two master
p2anned lacations for major industrial
developments, such as manufaciurzng ar
Grant County Ma�or Industriul,Developments
Site Selection Report
industrial businesses, outside of Urban Grovvth
Areas (UGAs) that:
• Requires a parcel of land so large that no
suitable parcels are available within an
urban grawth area; or
Is a natural resource-based industry
requirin� a location near agricuitural land
upon which it is dependent; or
• Requires a location with characteristics such
as proximity ta transpartatian i'acilities or
related industries such that there is no
suitable locatian in an urban growth area.
A master planned lacation far major industriai
deveiopments may be inctuded in the urban
industriai land bank for the County if criteria,
including the following, are met:
l. New infrastructure is provided far and/ar
applicable impact fees are paid;
2. Transit-oriented site planning and traffic
demand management programs are
implemented;
3. Buffers are provided between the major
industrial development and adjacent
nonurban areas;
4. Environrnental protection including air and
water quality has been. addressed and
provided for;
5. Devalopment regulations are established to
ensure that urban growth will not occur in
adjacent nanurban areas;
6. Provision is made to mitigate adverse
impacts on designated agricuitural lands,
December 1999
PCI
CHAPTE� 1,., ...INTRODU�CTTQN
forest lands, and minerai resource lands;
7, The plan for major industrial development
is consistent with the Caunty's developrnent
reguiations established for protection of
critiaal ar�as; and
&. An inventory af developable tand has beea�
conducted as provided in RCW 36,70A.36S.
In selecting master planned locations, przority
should be given to iocations that are adjacent to,
or in close proximiiy ta, an UGA. Final
appraval af inclusion of a master pianned
location far majar industrial development is
cansidered an adopted amendment to the
Comprehensive Pla�. Inclusion or exclusion of
master planried locations may be cansidered at
any time przor to December 31, 1999, and is not
subject to the requirernents of RCW
36.70A.13Q(2} regarding annual amendznents.
The process used for selecting suitable sites far
major industrial development consisted of the
following steps:
t. Assembie an advisary comrnittee to assist in
identificatian and evaluation of potential
sates.
2. Identify potentially suitable sites within the
ru�ral portio�s of the County.
3. Develop sits evaluation criteria and scoring
systezn to compare and conirast identified
sites.
4. Screen identi�ed sites for acceptabiiiiy for
further comparative analysis.
5. Canduct camparative evaluation, scoring
and ranking of potential sites, ar�d identify
the top-ranked sites for further public
review.
6. Conduct public review an the top-ranked
sites.
7. Make recommendation of the top four sites,
in priority order, for �nal consideration by
the Board of Caunty Commissianers and
seiection of not more ihan two sites for
designation.
8. Prepare SEPA documentation and
feasibility study for the tap-rated sites to
dacument consistency with the requirements
of RCW 36.70A.367.
9. Prepare an amendment to the Grant County
Camprehensive Plan to include designation
of the selected site(s} as master planned
locations for major industrial development,
PUBLIC P.�.RTICI�'ATIUN
Following preparation of a draft site selection
report, the Long Range Ptanning Deparirnent
will conduct a meeting with the Advisory
Camznittee at which the report wiil be
presented. The presen�ation witl be made in �
public workshop forum, where public camments
can be heard and fnai discussion between
Advisory Cammittee rnembers can occur. Based
on public camment and Advisory Cammittee
discussian and directian, any changes to the
draft site selection report will be incorparated
and a�nal report prepared and issued to the
Board af Caunty Commissioners.
To comply with the requirernents of the
Washingtan State Environmental Policy Act
(WAC 197�11), an enviranmental assessment
will be prepared in the form of an expanded
SEPA Checklist to supplernent the
environmental analysis inaluded in the
Crant eounty Ma,jar Industrial Developments December 1999
Site Selection Repart 2 PCI
�
�
�
C�APTER 1, . . . . .INTRtJDUCTIUN
Comprehensive Plan. The environmental
assessrnent will consider the potential impacts
to the natural and built environment pursuant to
WAC 197-11 and RCW 43.21.C. Vlitigation
��iil be proposed for identified impacts, and
unavoidable adverse impacts will be discussed.
SEPA scoping and public review processes will
be conducted as required by Iaw.
On December 6, 1999, the Grant Caunty Board
of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing
regarding designation of master planned
locations for major industrial develapment. The
Baard will review the Site Selection Report,
SEPA documentatic�n, feasibility study, and the
public comment received at the Advisory
Committee's pubiic workshop. Additionai
public camment wiil also be taken at the
Board's publi� hearing. Follawing their review,
the Baard will select nat mor� than two sites to
be designated.
Following selection af sites by the BQard of
County Commissianers, the Long Range
Planning Departmsnt will prepare documents
for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Suck� amendmeni rnay require additional public
invnlvement.
Grant County Major Industriai Devetapments I�ecember 1999
Site Selection Report 3 FCI
. � �
SITL IDEI'e1TIFI�CA�IUN
POTEI�ITIAI� SITES
Potential sites were identiiied by tnembers af
the Advisory Cornmittee during twa committee
meetings held in September and October. A
total of 7 sites were identified that are
cansidered having potential for designation as
master planned lacations far major industrial
develapm.ent:
l. Site No. 1— Backsho#: Lacated about 1
mile north of the Town of Mattawa along
both west and east side of SR 243. The tatal
site area is about 640 acres, about 100 acres
of which are owned by the Port af Mattawa
and are currently zaned Industrial. The
remainder is currentiy in agricultural use.
2. Site No. 2— Beverly Burke: Located
immediately adjacent ta tl�e George Urban
Growth Area, the site consists of about S2Q
acres. The site is to the east of Beverly
Burke Road and to the northwest of I 90,
which divides the southeast portion of the
site>
Site No. 3— Martin: Located adjacent to
and east of the Quincy Urban Growth Area,
the site is about 580 acres. The site iies
between Raad I 1 NW' and Raad 10 NW and
is divided by the West Canal. The site is
immediately adjacent to industrial property
within the Quincy UGA and is
predaminantly in agricultural use.
4. Site No. 4-- Dodson: Located immediately
adjacenf to the Ephrata Urban Growth Area,
the site is abaut 640 acres. The site lies
sauth of and abuts SR 282 about /2-mite
east of Dodsan Road. The area is currently
unimproved land.
S. Site No. S— Rocky Ford: Located between
Ephrata and Moses Lake, the site is about
30,000 acres in area. The site abuts and lies
to the northvvest of the Mases Lake UGA;
and abuts and lies ta the nartheast of the
Ephrata UGA. The site lies predaminantly
to the north and east af SR 17. The site
includes the area of Site Na. 4— Dadson.
The site alsa encornpasses the "buffer" zone
af the proposed VentureStar projeot
facilities. The area is predominantly
unirnprovecl land or rangeland.
Site No. 5— Mae Valiey: Located about i
mile to the west of the Moses Lake UGA,
the sits is about 2,600 acres. The site li�s
along the south shoreline af Mases Lake
across frorn the area knavvn as McCanih�
Flats. The area is auscently unimproved
land.
7. Site Na. 7— I 9Q Last: Lacated adjacent to
and east of the Moses Lake UGA, the site is
abaut 3,540 acres. The southern partion of
the site is divided by I 90, with the majarity
of the area narth af the freeway. The area is
also divided north and south by O Road.
The site is bounded on the easi by th� East
Low Canal.
Site locations are as shown on the attached map,
�igure l. Deta.iled site maps i"or each site are
includedin Appendix A.
SITE DATA
Site data was collected for each of the sites ta
facititate comparative site evaluation as
presented in Chapter 3. Data inctuded parcel
mapping, land use mapping, resaurce land and
crittical area rrtapping aarnpiled by Grant Caunty
Current Planning Depaz�tient, Soil Survey af
Grant Counry Major Industria! L?evelapmerzts December 1999
Site Selectian Report 4 pCl
�
�
�
CI3APTER 2... ... SITE IDENTIFICATION
Grant Caunty, electrical distribution mapping
campiied by Grant County PUD, and other
similar data. Available data was suppieznented
by site reconnaissance discusseci in Chapter 3.
Using sit� data collecied and the site
recannaissance, each of the sites was
characterized and zated for each af the site
selection criteria described 'rn Chapter 3. Site
data. zs carnpiied in Table I. Site
enviranmentally sez�sitive areas are shown an
mapping included in Appendix $.
Pertinent data regarding each site is suznmarized
below.
Site No. 1— Buckshot: Site topography ranges
from flat to rolling, The Part property is flat and
is currently being developed for industrial
purposes. Electriaal service is already provided
to the Port property. Other services, including
water, sewer and fire response, rnay be available
fram the Town of Mattawat, but are more than
1 mile from the site. Natural gas is not available.
Environmental considerations are slight. The
site has good transportatian access via SR 243
north to I 90 and south ta the Tri-Cities area.
Rail access is not avaitable to the site. Support
services, while lirnited, are available within the
Town. Little resistance to designation pf the site
as a MID is expected; there are few owners and
the Port supports designation. However, the type
af industry likely to Iaaate there would be
agricultural-related, which can be located within
resource lands af the County. Therefore, there
may be littie vaiue is designatian af this site.
Site Na. 2— Beverly Burke: Site topography is
flat. Electrical service is avaiiable nearby the
site, Water service may be available from the
Town of Georgel; however, it is more than 1
mile from the site. An existing water right is
availabie for the site. Sewer service is nearby;
the Town's wastevvatez• treatment facility is
nearby. i�latural gas is nat available.
Enviranmental considerations are minnr; there
is a srnail wetland area in the southwest carner
af the site and same wildlife priority species
occurrence. The site has good transportatian
access to i 90 and nortl� to Quincy. Rail ac�ess
is nat available to the site. Support services,
whiie limited, are avaiiabie within the Town.
Little resistance to designation of the site as a
MID is expected; the property awner supports
designation. However, the srrtall size of the site
is cans'rdered a negative and the lacatian may be
better suited to freeway carnmercial use.
Site No. 3— iVlartin: Site tapography is flat.
Electrical servzce is available nearby; however,
capacity is a concern. Other services, including
water, sewer and iire response may be availahle
from the City of Quincyl, within 1 mile froxn
the site. Natural gas is available nearby.
Enviranmental considerations are negligible.
The site has good transportation access via SR
28 west ta W enatchee, south to George and I 9Q,
and east to Ephrata. Rail access is available to
the site. Support services are available in
Quincy. L,ittle resistance ta designation of the
site as a MID is expected; there are few owners
and the Port supports desi mation. Again, the
type af industry mast likely to lncate there
woutd be agrioultural-related, which can be
located within resource Iands of the County.
Also, there is a considerable amount of
industriat prop�rty already included within the
Quincy UGA.
Site No. 4— Dodsan: Site topograph� is flat; a
� stee�p bluff defines the western portion of the
Altl�ough water, sewer and other infrastructure
may exist within an adjacent ciry, adequate site and separates it frotr� residential
capacity may nat be availabie and/ar the city may development ta the west. EIectrical service is
not be willing ar abie to pravide service beyond its available nearby. 4ther services, including
corporate limzts ar urban growth area. water, sewer and fire response may be available
Grant County Ma� jor Industrial L7evelopments December 1999
Site Selection Report g pG1
CI3APTER 2,.. ... SITE IDENTIFICA:TICiN
from the City of Ephratal, within 1 mile from
the site. Naturai gas is not available.
Environmental considerations are siight. The
site has good transportation access via SR 2$2
east to SR 17 and Moses Lake. Rail access is
available within 1 mile. Suppart services are
available in Ephrata. Designation of the site as a
MIIJ may be more dif�cult than at other sites
due to its proxirnity to residential areas, Also,
there is a considerable amount of industrial
property already included at the Ephrata Airpart
within the Ephrata UGA.
Site 1'�0. 5— Rocky Ford: This site is by far the
iargest of those considered, extending from
Ephrata to Mases Lake. Site size is controlled
by inclusion of sufficient faczlity and buffer land
for the propased VentureStarTM projeet. Site
topagraphy zs flat. Eleotrieal service is available
nearby; the Rocky Fard Substatian was reoently
comp3eted. Other services, inciuding water,
sewer and fire response may be available from
adjacent oities�, Natura� gas is available within
14 miles. The site has good transportation
access via SIt 17 to E�ahrata and Moses Lake.
Rai1 access is available at both the Ephrata and
Moses Lake ends< The proximity to the Grant
Coun�ly International Airport is aisa a distinct
advantage. Suppart serrvices are available in
Moses Lake, Soap Lake and �phrata.
Designation difficulfy is expected to be
maderate due to its size and its adjacency to
several cities; however, the Port of Moses Lake
fully supports the site for use in the VentureStar
proposal. Environmental considerations are
more significant at this site than any of the other
sites, Twa significant drainage systetns divide
the site; Rocky Ford Creek and Crab Creek. The
site also provides significant wildlife habitat.
However, the impacts ai the designation is
expected to be slight, since the majority of the
area is a buffer zone for the VentureStar project
where little, if any, develaprnent would accur.
Site No. 6— VIae Valley: The site lies along ihe
sauth shoreline of Moses Lake acrass from the
area known as McConihe Flats. Site topography
is flat; a steep btuff defines the northern portian
of the site and separates ii fram Moses Lake.
The area is somewhat remate; services,
including water, sewer, eleetrieal, and fire
response are several miles frarn the site. Natura�
gas is not available. Enviranmental
considerations are slight. The site has paor
transpartation access via County Road B NE
sauth ta I 90. Suppart services are available in
Moses Lake. Designation of the site as a MID
rnay be mare difficult than at other sites due to
its proximity to residential areas.
Site No. 7-� I 90 East: Site topography is
relatively flat. Electrical service is available
nearby; the� Rocl�y Fard Substatfon was recentiy
ly
completed and provides sufficient capacity.
However, this area is at the end af th�
transmission system, and hea�y industtial
development such as that which has occurxed
along the Wheeler corridor wauld quickly
deplete avaiiable capaciry. C?ther services,
inciuding water, sewer and �re response may be
available from the City o� Moses Lake �. Natural
gas is available within 5 to 10 miles. The site
has excellent transportation access to I 90. Rail
aceess is available, Support services ar�
available in Moses Lake. Designatio� is
expected to be moderately dif�cuit due to its
proxirnity to the city of Mases Lake and the
Wheeler corridor area wk�ich was a cantroversial
element of the Moses Lake UGA designation.
Environmental cansidearations are expected to be
minar.
�
�.
Grant County Ma, jor Industrial Developments December 1999 �
Site Selectian Report g pCl
�
�ur �.c rn c4
}
a e- i e a� an g wnmary
rte o. rte ete rte ite ite �te rte
MID Naare Buckshot Beverly �urke Martin Dodson� Racky Ford Mae Valley I 90 East
n eria ng
................... .........:...:..:..........�---..:.:..:. -.. .,.. .. _ _ - - -
................ . .... -. ::::: . .:..--.-... ..::. :. ..:..::..::..:::::;::.:.>;:<:;.::»�>::«;::;;;::»:::>:-::<;�::;:::-:;;::.::_:.::-;;::;.:;<::;:;;>:;:.:;��.::::-::::;:;:;.:;:.:�;:.�<:.>;::;:.;r.�::::>:::::>:::;�:.:::.;,;;:;:.;;:��;;:::•.;
.,-:.,:�:::::.;: �.:.::::;. ., ........: . ... ....
Q�[ �y .:::�:::z::s:r.:.�s :::.:z$::.:: �i%,i=R:::,:Y;:::#s�:=;:{:;ss?sss,;z.;#: <:::;��:;�:': ��>: <�:?>:: ��:z{>�: :}=>:� �'�>::::ii::<;:>::::;:::z:i:>:;:<u=s::fi:>:=::=::<a:;:;s:::z::z::::;;t::;;:;:;`<�:;::::;;;:;:;:`:;s::;::
y ,;..,.......: ,:�..- '.........,..,..
..:•...:::•...•... •j''�h yee� pya� '..: ..;:•:..:.:::. ........ .•:x:•::::::•,:::r. y
.. . ::• . ..v,.•.r•,t:+vF :. .... : ••.:. •.x•::..�
. . . . . ..., ..•......:•...•.:..�::.::•;::`:::•;.;.::++:::::+�•-.r+x::-:•:.,-�.y::�:;yy.�.. ..................... ............ .
. . . . r . .......... ...:: . .. . , r....................n.,,................_........:::..v:.y..-.:..:..a.:..:::....:.....:.::.:::::::....:•::::•::::::.-::::::�:::..,..:.r•:::..::-..:...::.::.:-.:: .;.::;.
;.v.;..n�.v.;`:. .�>�l�G.Y..:�;!ia1�{4.R�Y.i.AT_.,,,�„ . ``...;._..}is7:S3.}�?i.; .�.2�t..e:S::r .,-,-]..;.,-•;;•
:..rn:::•i:a. ..: .: ......."" ........... .. ........ ...av..n, . . �....... «...v.... .:�..:.7i..........................-3.
:. . . .... ..
......:.:::�::::.... . r , . .
Topography
Relatively Flat x x x x x _ _ x� _ _ x
Moderate slope a x
Steep sla es
Designation Potential
Easy_ _ - - --- _
Moderatelyeasy Y Y x _ ________�_
Ivioderate g x
Iaiod�ately difficult x x � -
Diflicult
BuildingSiteDevelopment(Soids) _ _..._______ ____..____._.
Slight x x x __ x _ x�
Moderate $ x x x
Severe
dncompatible Adjacent Land Use __
None �'� - --------------
Some z z x x x x
Significa�at
:�-,::::. -
`i4'v:-.14...
�':� -
i�i�w -
v:t{4�:tiiii "+�w
��`�~
�♦
�'ry(i�: %{���v:i'vi:i:?:::i.?�ik��vu�2L{i-:ii��i��lY����v�L:��iiL`v�ii-`.v�{?v �i �>S:2L�:i:�:Y'i:i:":ij`v:i::i}::i`iii�:T::1:::i:?::i::i}:� �:?v�i`:i:i:: ::i::i;?:i:::::
nv:..:a..:� c::v.txv�t�+t:v.:ai�v, . : v.::�: �
:nvnv...: ti�:.v::nv���v.v.Nti;i. . vvvt;.v'C,�Hv�.� " • .. . . .•
. .� ♦ w:i':.�N � .. ..
v.� nv::::: '^�:�� �
v� • �v x�-.�.}v::.�1c.,v
.... ....:.. ......., . . ,.. . . .. .: .. .-...�. .� ....:..:•::: :;2•`.=::`C........ \. A �. .. ....•.2::
" , ,. � ,�t._,`. .�. ; ti...�.� \.�, b h♦ �
»4<�<ij\};.x;�, t �vl:.. �:::»'^4\}: :�i4�i ::�\ . ..}..
n.� ..; .-::•w-:v':
n `�"""t�\ � ��vnv�wr:.v•.��v� .v-.:nr �u�•.�tii . . _
. ..... ... .. ......... .
Edectrical Service ----. ___.._. _ _._ _. .
PUD Area 1
PIJD Area 2 g $ ___�. __ x
PUD Area 3- z x x x
PUD Area 4 X
Yd�ater Suppdy ,�__,__
Public Water to Site
Public water within 1 mile x x x x x
- - -- -- -- —
Eacisting water right x
__ _ _ _------- - --- -- -
Public water more than 1 mile x x
No or unl�►own water right
Sanitary Sewer Service
Public sewer to site
— - -- — -- -- — — --- -- ------------ - ---- -
Public seiver within i mile x x x x x
-- - --- - - --- — ------- - - _ _ - --_ _
Public sewer more than 1 mile x x
� ��
,�"'��*�
a e- �t c a a an g ummary
ite o. �te rte ite rte rte ate ite
MiD I�iame Buckshot Beverly Burke Martin Dodson' Rocky Ford Mae VaIley I 90 East
n ena a ing
Fire Res onse
Within. 2 miles of fire station x x x x x x
Withm 5 mites of fire station .___�_ _ - ----------..-
------ -----_ --- -
With�n 10 mt�es of fire statian i � - - . . . ._ ._-. - -
Mare than 10 miles from fire statian -- -- ---
Naturai Gas '
Nataral gas ta site ; -`-�--^-
Natural Gas within 1 m ile af site - - x - ----- - - - --- - - - -x ---
Natural Gas witixin 5 miles from site -- -- ---- z---
Natural Gas within 10 miles from site - - �� ----- -___�_.___--
Natnral Gas more than 10 �iles from site x - g x x -- --- ---
::,-;�-::..::.:. :<:.--�<�-.:,..;.<-.::-.:.. � ...., -�--� -
C::�. . j ""C\�'? ':�:S:tt Ci�i??:u[: a'• ti.:rg :.•i.t,u:.:iva �<:i5;:;'�v_i•'i'" '.:.''c=':i!i: �y3:i:::?•}P-}i:tii:::y}'".:i4ii`.'i :,+.iii �'':t•'+Ciit�:'�i'.vii+•�i:i:�?:-{':Fi:`.:..: :i{ti-'s:<hi:iv:�:iIXt.,-�
:F. . :,.:. ._ ....:�..•iv.4h v. v..i•t.v'.. .'"' '•:?::: •.i- ""
. . j . -. . . ,-.r.:.y : v.vv h.•. v::4�.. •. rv. . ...;:r"".cv
..w_+... .4. . . . k v "hv.{.::....... �•J.•:? i:?YM:v.: "kw. }. b. .��.. . 'v. .:v.{v .�F.. ....::.^:: ....,-"' "' '" ""
�3� y� v.vk.... . ..n4 .v -
... r. . . ... .. .........: • .. .. . .. .. . ..� , ,. , • ...,�..: . : -U.,; {.r:...: •: • • :x�- :..::.'
� :.. �._ .:: .
. •... . - ,n. ..,.. .+..�.u... �t..•.�. � ct .. ..,.. .A'. ..o .:'Q�
.�-� . ...:::.::.::,^•.':T`.-::4'i} �: : : � �
v.v �.. S t'�.ti. .+n4.+..tiwv.�. � r.z:�i:4i:":.:: ♦
_ n G:::: -
� '�.-.,.. ...�� .....�a..... r•.:� ,.�,., �,�w. �..:r,ry.x....:x� :.e'•;:i=>.s'.'s:<�:=
. � >��#f�£-`�� :xt:�:,:'z:>::,_
:i:G::+X.FiOI . iRt3i� �acvi$ _:0.�.:- _{.
:w•Y, ...:i.: x::iv.�'v: •:'•..:S+.w+.,"..... . ..
. ..�_ 5 .. ... ................'...... .:A..:.r:>i� .... . :�.... ... �:::....:..:x; . v+. .. "� ...� :-:•: .A. .. 3:?:::'-:-},v,;.vv.v.F, .
�.v..::
...... . . . . .... . � �t,•`:...:h........:: . . . . ..i
�.?Ciicv..... v.+.v '� .i'r; i••.•: i}
. ........ . .... . . "'"" ... . .. ... ..... .
.... . : . :1�:.. ..r...__.�.::::>;i :..........::..}'::=✓::
. ........... . .. ...... .......
Flood Hazard
NofloodUazard x x X -X - X-- ----�--- ---_.._�____._.
Within Frequently Flooded Area -- - - -.. _- - -- -- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - . - -
Within 100 Year floodplain � � �
�etlands
None x x x
Less than 10°lo afsite - x . -------- � - X -- -- - _ _.X�_.. ._
Less than 2S°/m of site
---- — --- - -- -..._ . _ . . . - - ---- -
More that 25°/a of sate
Habilat Potential
Very poar - - X ---- -- , - --- --- - -
---- - -- — -- - -- --- --- -- --- -.. . . __ - - - -
Poar � x x x
Fair x g �
Good z x -
Very gaad ��
Visual Aesthetzcs
Natural Screening - x -- - -- ---- - ---
--- ----- --- -_ _ _ _ --
Buffer area available far screening x x x x x
Facilatyvisiblefromadjaceaatland - x - ------ -
Impaizme,nt of scenic views
a e- � e a a aai g ummary
rte o. ate rte �te rte rte rte rte
MID Name Bucksha� Bev�rly Burke Markin Dodson Rocky Ford Mae �Talley I 90 East
n eria i�g
Noise
Insignificant impacts z x x x x x_
Moderaie impacts X w __. ..-.--- _ . .. _.. -,--.. _..
Signficant impacts
Surface Water
More than 500 feet from water body � g x x z x
Wirhin 500 feet of wate,� body x
Withiu 200 fcet af water body
.. ..' _...... ... .y..:. y.".,,,-v. .....n: v:: ':..v..:'•::'..: `,. '... . ' n:..ti� �+n +..-.. <Gi�'.i.::..v..:v_i:ei-ii:�.i.•:i-hr.0 +. •i_4:.i.:ti'ii..x2•:it•:J.:,ii-'v<'`!:•:::.::iv.::-::4ii:ii:::i;::'::::vY'....:Y�Yi _
\. �}��
. . - . . ... �. . �. � '��v� ♦ � ♦ �v =::{ -... ..... ...'"
. v--. . "6 ti.ti...+... . . .. .. . v.�v.vi��.v,v -i:ii:'tiiti}t .'a�ti�.tiZ}viu'..�.�uvA+a.;.4�::;y.�Kv-.,v..i.:•: �: � ti:Y..v-xw � z�r : �.A'vi:�w�.':. •�}`,."�
�.4stvvK�sq�..,a \ �...�� �t� �hv..nu...��.. .. vv�'V� AJ.� 1 «'�u�.�w.....1v _..2.<vv. �+. __..+tt�...�Nx
`:+�^�` ��u� v
..,.�4 i ti:.:+x _
�•iv �'-'h �i:_ry>i?$.;�':i:jiii:L{?',+.r.:-i2i:;ti::nv.'+.
��:�^.k.: :c•� '§�;i=�� :�� ..``�va.� '+�;za tia :z;:zs.r� :.:..k:i<..w:„�a�.:�:.av. `�cii. •„:::i#. ,-?x:z ..�;zx•-�::z:;:
. ... . . , . ..
- ., . �.. ; - ��;.;,;:�.�.v..:.-.�:; z.�:�, ``.. .. ;�;.L. .
• . .
..
-� •.�,..,;,,fi, .. , .-x^;}'�,`,. , .s . r'fi ."r... �`:.., . ..�::: :. .::�.. . x... .
r .
: ., . . .. .. . ... . ........ ... ::.... •.:.... . �.. . .... . . � :`�?,..
ACC&'SS RQZ4#6
T�2iOTT�t iIIi�i3Stti� �I'tn3 X X X 71C
_ __� __�____ ...---__. .._ _.--------...
i�i2{}ttg�l lC�SbiiPG� �ilC�S % %. X R ]�
�oagh law density residential area % _ x ?�--- �_____.._
Throagh h4gta densiiy xesidential area �___.
Stare Highway Access
Adjacent ta I-90 — ---- --._. X_ �_ _
Adjacentto State Highway x x x x x � � '
- — --�----- -
_---._.... --... - - -...._ ._.. _
Within 1 ffii1e
Moae than 1 mile �... __.�_ _ ----..
Raal Access
On Rail �� x
--- --- __ ____—_.___� ^._.__.. . . __. ._.._------------- -- - - -. . _ .
Within 1 mile X
.___ - ---_— _---- --- -
Within 10 m�es X _ ... .
More than 10 mi'les �c x x ---- --- -
Airport �Iccess _
At Auport x
- — -- -- - --�._.�.�. ..�___ _�___. _._.. . - - --- -------- - --.._. �_..-- -.._ _. . ..
Within 1 mite x
Within 1f� m�ies x g---
More �an 10 miles x x x x
Prcz�imity to Support Services ____ ._ _ _
Within 1 mile x x x x x x
W�t2�in 5 m�es — -
More than 5 miles x --
i Dodson site was considered and scored as an independent sits, but is also included within the limits of the Rocky Ford site.
CHAPTEIZ 3
�(JIVIPARATI'VE SITE EVALUATI(JIY
I� • ► i
This chapter docurnents the application of the
camparative site evaluation criteria to the
potentiai sites far the proposed master planned
locatians for major industrial development
(hereinafter referred to as a MID}. The purpose
of the comparativ� site evaivatian process is to
determine w%ich features make a particular site
more suitable for deveiopment. The appiicatian
of the crizeria ta the patential sites results in the
It��Titl�iC��2021 O� trl� IT10Si �iT�fBTi`�C� SItOS.
Pour categories of criteria have been used to
canduct a camparati=�e site evaluation:
• general site characteristics,
• utilities,
• environmental�cansiderations, and
• transpartation and aacess.
All criteria within these categaries are assigned
multipliers ranging from 5(mast important) to l
(least important) ta gauge their relative
importance in the averall rating process. For
each site, the criterion receives a rating from 10
(most desirable) to 1(least desirable). The
ratings are then multiplied by the respective
multiplier and surnmed to provide a total site
score. Sites with relatively high scores are
preferred over sites with relatively law scores.
The comparative site evalua�ion criteria were
assembled frnm the State Environmental
Protection Act guidelines, Grant County's
Critical Areas and Resource Lands Ordinance,
and fram similar site selection studies
performed within King, Snohomish, Pacific, and
Yakima counties.
GENERAL SITE
CHAR.ACTEIZISTICS
Tapography
Definition: Site topography will affect
drainage, visual irnpacts, and site access. Sites
with steep slopes may have �oc►d drainage, but
have grades tao steep for truck access.
Generalty, flatter sites are preferred.
Rating: Relatively flat (0 io 3%) ....................10
Moderate slope (3 — 5%) .....................5
Steep slopes ( 5— I O%) .......................1
Weight: 3
Designation Potential
Definition� Site designation potentiat varies
with praperty ownership, existing development,
and cost. Designatian af a parcel as a MID rnay
enhance its economic value; alternately,
designation may preclude other types of
development that may be desired by a particuiar
landowrter. Publicly owned sites are likely ta be
easier to acquire for industrial use than land in
private ownershzp. The number of individuat
pareels and ownership that make up the territory
may alsa impact ease af designation. Public
support of industrial development of the
territary will also impact ease of designation,
Rating: Relative Ease of Designation
Easy..............................................1Q
ModeratelyEasy .............................8
Moderate......................................0..6
Moderately Difiicult .......................4
Dif�cult ...............o........,.........e....... l
Grant C'ounty Major Industrial Devetapments December 1999
Site Setection Report I 1 Pe1
CHAPTEI�, 3... ...COMPARATIVE SITE EVALUATION
Weight: 5
B'urlding Site Development (Soils)
Definition: The geology of subsurface materials
is important in determining foundation
stabilities for roadways and sit� structures. Sites
with unstable soil faundations, shallow water
tables, and oth�r geaiogic k�azards would be
rnore difficult and costly to develop. Building
site developrnent limitations are based on soii
engineering data included in the Sail Survey of
Grant Counry, tISDA SCS, Table 10.
Limitations are cansidered sl� if soil
properties and site features are generally
favorable for industrial development� and
li�txtitations are minor and easily overcame;
moderate if soil properties or site features are
not favorable for industrial deveiapmeni and
special planning, design or maintenance is
needed to overcome or minimize limitations;
and severe if soil properties or site features are
so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that
special design, significant increases in
construction casts, arnd possibly increased
rnaintenance are required.
itating: Building sit� development iimitatians;
Slight................................................. 10
Moderate............................................e 6
Severe....................a..,...o,.................... �
Weight: 3
Adjacent Land LTse
Definxtions The development of a site as a MII)
may have a defirimental impact on adjacent land
uses. Adja�ent land uses that could be
ineompatible wit�i major industrial development
include nzral and urban residential, rural areas
of more intensive c3evelopment (RAIl�s), open
space, and cultural resour°oe land. Adjacent land
uses that wilt be manimally itnpaoted by major
industrial development include industriat,
comxnercial, agricultural resource lands, and
urban growth areas. See Figure 2— Future Land
Use Map.
Rating: Incompatible Adjacent Land Use:
Nane.............................................1Q
Same...............................................5
Significant . ....................................1
Weight: S
UTILITIES
'The availability of site utiiities is an important
economic consideration far site develapmeni.
Sites that do nat have water, sewer, and 3-phase
electricat power available are mare expensive ta
develop. Public water supply an.d sewage
dispasal is preferred.
Electrical Service
lleiinition: Th� Grant County PUD has
identiiied those areas mast easily served by
existing pawer supply system. Areas are ranlced
From 1 to 4 in order af highest to � least
preference, as shor�m in Figure 3. Sites that have
the potential to connect to existing power
supplies are praferred to those sites that require
electrical serviae development.
Rating: PUD Area 1...........o .....................o...,.10
PUD Area 2 .........................................6
PUDArea 3 .........................................4
PUDArea 4 ......:....4 .............................2
Weight: 2
Water Supply
Deianitian: 'The MID rnust have an adequat�
water right ta supply industrial operarion and
maintenance requirernents. Water requirements
Grant County Major Indus#rial Developments December 1999
Site Selection Report � 12 PCI
�
�
�
CHAPTER 3.,. ...COMPARATIVE SITE EVALUATIi�N
may vary widely depending upan the eventual
industrial development. Sites that have the
potential to connect to existing water supplies
are preferred to those that require the
devetopment of this utility.
Rating: Public water to site ........................... 10
Pubiic water within 1 rnile of site....... 6
Existing water right ............................ 4
Public water > 1 mile from site ........,. 2
No or unlrnown water right ................. 1
Weight: 4
Sanitarv Sewer Service
De�nition: Wasiewater may inciude damestic
sewage, processing �vaste, main#enance
washdown water, vehicie wash water and other
wastewater. Wastewater can either be disposed
of by discharge to a municipal sewer system, by
an-site dispasal, or by trucking to aff-site
disposal systems. Sites that have access to
existing municipal sewer systerns are highly
preferable.
Rating; Public sewer to site ........................... 10
Public sewer within 1 mile of site ...... G
Public sewer > 1 mile from site.......... 4
Weight: 3
Fire Response
Definition: Emergencies such as fires and
injuries rnay occur �t industrial developrnents.
Proximity to a fire station can be used as a
measurement af response time ta an emergency.
Rating: Within 2 miles of service facility ..... 10
Within 2-5 rniles of service facility.... 7
Within 5-10 miles of service facility.. 3
Over IO miles from service facility.... 1
Weight: 3
Natural Gas
Definition: Majar industrial development often
requires natural �as as a process fuel. Sites that
have the potential to connect to existing natural
gas supplies are preferred ta those that require
the development of this utility.
Rating: Naturai gas to site ..............................10
Natuaral gas within 1 mile of site .........8
Natural gas within 5 miles of site........4
Natural gas within IO tniies of site......2
Natural gas over 10 miles frorn site ....1
Weight: 2
ENViRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Many environrnental factors need to be
considered when siting a MID. A major
objective of the siting process is to seleat sites
that will have minimal irnpact an the
environment.
Flood Haza��d
Definition: Locating industrial development an
a site that is subject to flooding could restrict
storrnwater flow, divert flood waters, and reduce
temporary flood storage capacity. The rnast
desirabla location is one that contains no flood
hazard. A flood hazard includes areas within a
100-year floodplain and frequently flooded
areas, as defined in Grant County's Resource
Lands and Critical Areas ordinance.
Rating: Flood hazard:
Nane.............................................10
Less than 10% of site .....................»7
Less than 25°l0 of site< .............o,..0.0.4
Grant Caunry Major Industrial Developmenrs . December I999
Site Seleciion Report 13 PCI
CHAPTER 3... ...CQMPARATIVE 5ITE EVALUATIiJN
� �.More than 25°to of site ................... 2
Weight: 4
�
Grant County Major Inda�strial Developments December ,1999 �
Site Selectian Report 14 , ': PCI
au �,
MA l4+i1
T�N � o � O.N N l, N.
b
T � `._'?' tii._.
� „1' f�-�j!'-' ._,
rne ,.v �;• �y�,,;..
Tx�� w � h��
��X '�' ` :• 1',t�a�':
,s �l�c,�,
t t�i"•�a ' a , . . .
,. r �, „ `� ...., -�r .,
,k E
t�M "fI'�
��� -� . .. _
� ��� � , �
r..
�k�.f J „� ��i'! W,';jw
s � �,
��� - � � '�.�
�,�-�
� ~�r'i�
T t 3_...Y' —' `� . ��
'�,+a.,.'a�-::�M��� � r.�N-..r
run�� . . a 1• .
h,�F� . . .� , .
..�_,,.�: _ . . ..
•
�� - f�
�`+id#w .Y �rfa-:_aE�
Sr4�=�„ k.+� V� ���,.-._�..7'JP"��.t�'�t+
$ �S � �
�tw:.f.. �y !"�•ui.�xfis�t••I IIII�
�'i+�:iixc-:..r. ,
� - `�:
- ,� � ,U►: i t
j: _. _ � � {
d«`:i.•_ �
,;, �!� �
ra�x�+-- ���
�F
'�r:�� �. . . _� `
t y� �r
,!{� -
:�. �.�...� � . �
aa
�K
� ;
,�N .d!•:
K
�
Comorenensive Plan
cranccoanrv, w�6mg�n
Frgum �-5
Futrr►r Land U.re
� �
�MN v.: N
r B6
61 �p N
: �'t Di
. ._., ?.. � .
_ 1.;,;�=:.:��:. tr
"ey.-,-�----.� r .
t�r_ '.y
" _ ,�, y ,�,�N
N
4T
':-....., �'r.- i� N
+�F,.c...�. ._� �`+,� M
��•—'•-- M �
"� � q
�� � ,. ., i"t� T�N f i l..i'„�.`Q�
, � �
' -N^^--+f-i �� �I
i{" 'Pr • .� 1�_ � p .�r��,
. ' '� ......._.,t..� ' M � � [ 1 Gi[�ff0 �i� Ai�t�
' y�,_—_.—�,-'}' s'� �„_.... .I � �....r y3oue�oes
1, �
... �'i ryy$ � `» TriM j�O!{�Aitl�Qf
!�-c� � Y�6N
-re-.� " ' `M � It11m/�'Ie �t
!����j��� !t � �
��'�� n I ��j x�w�rck.�a,�
'. �<,'. �p CNN ,�w�
� T23M I I(�r-� ) fttltv(".O�IYOIt1
`Ad,.r
�� " ' i! ,��
_ �.. �
f . ' � ! I� ��.�
�
� i���� T'7!N i�
./. � S17N � ('.�lMJY
S
� i �� �
� . �
, H � ��i1II{l6
,�r���.• u Ta�iN I 4� iFi6tl141�tlre
_ tt
. �w II� ���
: �. u
y. ' w I �� ��
_ -,� � 1�
n mN wnr�ae
tt
N � � n11N�� �
t I�� n4Y'�{ � Z
� I
� L]DM
T1�N
� � �RUOtlIa Z.iOi�f
. � ��
, �
' � � �• �
,
�,.»
� ,•" i IG �
_ �
�
.
.
s tuw
� TSJN
i I �
� II� �
i II
„ i;
ti I I�+s�+T�4.c.wC..wWw►s
T17N
i Y N O � G# • T U V W X�� TWN �{ �hc�qjWri,Wrr
� I�t1'n1�YYre4rM�MaWp�pu+.
Y96 Siit K i II�MY �ifaea4swrW+�s
All1 wA � ' ���
i ' tlw {�ir 19'D4
I
�i
� i CmntCa�unt�
� � ����
. "„^'6'nr+�a �� Pi h1r01i
�L.#<..11�l i1►1�8Y�f.I/IR4 %I!4
I ��a�u�'ee. �YI!/e�
�
�f
CHAPTEI2 3... ...COMPAR.ATIVE SITE EVALUATION
Wetlands
Definition: Industrial development on a site that
contains wetlands may result in impacts
requiring costly rnitigation under federal, state
and local regulations. Sites containing
significant wetlands are considered less
desirable than those that do not. Sites having
adverse impacts on off-site wetlands should also
be avoided.
Rating: Wetland area:
None............................................. 10
Less than 10% of site ..................... 7
Less than 25% of site ..................... �
More than 25% of site ................... 2
Weight: 3
Habitat Potential
Definition: industrial development on a site that
is capable of supporting or supports wildlife
habitat may result in irnpacts requiring costly
mitigation under federal, state and local
regulations. Sites highly capable of supporting
habitat are considered less desirable than those
that offer poor habitat. Habitat potential is based
on predominant soil type of the area, as defined
in Soil Survey of Grant County, ZISDA SCS,
Table 9.
Rating: Habitat potential:
Verypoor ..................................... 10
Poor................................................ 7
Fair................................................. 5
Good............................................... 3
VeryGood ...................................... 1
Weight: 3
Visual Aesthetics
Definition: Potential aesthetic impacts include
obstruction of scenic vistas and impacts to
nearby residents from light and glare. The
preferred site would have existing natural
buffers or sufficient land for plantings, berms,
or fences for screening.
Rating: Natural screening ...............................10
Buffer area available for screening .....7
Facility visible from adjacent land......3
Irnpairment of scenic views ................1
Weight: 2
Noise
Definition: Industrial operations and associated
increases in traffic volume can have an adverse
noise impact on surrounding properties.
Maximizing distance to the nearest non-
indusfial receiving property, and/or the
existence of noise barriers, are important
considerations for minimizing noise impacts
generated by industrial operations. Sites that
would result in •the lowest increase in noise for
the nearest non-industrial receiving properties
are preferred to sites that would significantly
increase site.noise.
Rating: Insignificant impacts .........................10
Moderate impacts ................................5
Significant impacts .............................. l
Weight: 3
Surface Water
Definition: Protection of nearby surface water
from degradation due to industrial operations is
of importance. Sites should be evaluated with
regard to the location of surface water bodies on
or adjacent to the site.
Ratingt > 500 feet ftom water body ...............10
Within 500 feet of water body ............5
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
Site Selection Report � � pCl
CHAPTER 3... ...CtJMPARATIVE SITE ]EVALIJATION
Within 200 feet of water body,........... 2
Weight� 2
TRAI�ISPORTA'I'ION & ACCESS
Because industrial de�velopment can strain the
surrounding transportation network,
transportation issues are a major consideration.
Desirable features include access rautes through
areas of compatible land use, close proximity ta
a state highway and rail access, flat access raute
grades, minirnal conflicts with pedestrian ar
bicycle t�affic, and minimal impacts on
surrounding street intersections,
Access Route
Defiuitian: Because traffic will impact noise
levels, safety, �tnd azr quality along the aocess
route, access at the site should be through
spazsely populaterl areas rather fihan through
residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, acaess
routes should be suitable for the heavy truck
traffic expected at a NIID. The volume of traffic
associaied with a MiD can have adverse irnpacts
on the safety of surrounding roadways. Sites
that result in no or only tninor impacts an traffzc
safety are preferred.
Rating. Through industrial area .............e....... 14
Through resource lan;ds ...................... 8
'Thraugh law density residential �rea . 3
Through h:igh density residential area 1
Weight. 4
State Flighway Access
Definition: Proximity to a state highway will
shorten travel tirnes and Iessen the impact on
locat roads and traffic patterns.
Within 1 mile af State Highway........,.3
Over 1 mile from State Highway ........1
Weight: 4
Rail Access
Definitian: Praximity to a rail facility may
lessen the impact on local roads and traffic
patterns and provide alternative modes of
shipment,
Rating: �n Rail ...... ....................................10
Within I mile of Raii ........:................e.S
Within 10 miles af Rail .......................3
Uver IO miles from: Rail ..:...................1
Weight: 3
Airport Access
Definit'ton. Proximity to an airport facility may
lessen the Xmpact on local roads and traffic
patterns and provide alteznative rnodes of
shiprnent.
Rating: At aizport .......................................d...10
Withiz� 1 mile of Airport .....................5
Within 10 miles of Airport ..................3
Over 10 r�iles from Airport ................. l
Weight: 2
Proximity to Support Services
Definition: Aacess ta services such as
equipment parts, fuel, supplies, and commercial
establishments is impartant. Therefore, sites that
are closer to services are preferred.
Itatings Within 1 mile of servuces ..................10
Between I and 5 miles of services ......5
Greater than 5 miles af services ..,.......1
�
�
]Etating: Adjacent to I-90 ................................ IO
.Adjacent to State Highway .........:....... 6 Weight; 3
Grant County Major Industrittl Devetopments December 1999 �
Site Setectian Report 18 FC1'
CHAPTER 3... ...COMPARA,TIVE SITE EVALUATION
SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND
SCORING
On October 28, 1999, members of the Advisory
Committee, Long Range Flanning staff, and PCI
conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the
potential sites and performed a visual
characterization and evaluation of site features,
environmental constraints, land use, and access
issues. Those participating in the site
reconnaissance and scoring were:
1, Terry Brewer, Executive Director, Grant
County Economic Development Council,
2. Albert Anderson, Industrial Development
Manager, Port of Moses Lake,
3. Scott Clark, Deputy Director, Grant County
Long Range Planning Department,
L� John McMahan, Councilman, City of
Ephrata
5. Craig Jorgenson, Grant County PUD,
6. Dave Dinges, Grant County Planning
Commission, and
7. .Dennis Cearns, Proulx Cearns, Inc.
This survey taken together with review of public
documents gathered for the sites were used to
score ancl rank the sites.
Following the site reconnaissance, each member
evaluated and scored each of the sites. Based on
the site data and rating summary and
reconnaissance survey, a composite site score
was compiled for each of the sites, as shown in
Table 3.
In addition to the more quantitative approach of
rating, scoring and ranking each of the sites, the
participating advisory committee members
conducted a more qualitative discussion
regarding the merits of each of the sites.
Following that discussion, each participant
ranked the sites as indicated in Table 2, below.
Table Z
Site Ranking
Site Ranking
No. Name Dinges 1 Brewer Anderson 1 McMahan Jorgenson
1 Buckshot 5 6 5 6 6
2 Beverly Burke 5 4 5 4 4
3 Martin 3 3 3 5 5
4 Dodson 4 5 4 3 � 3
5 Rocky Ford 1 1 1 1 1
6 Mae Valley 5 7 5� 7 i
7 I-90 2 2 2 2 2
Ranked Buckshot, Beverly Burke and Mae Valley the same following the first four sites.
Grant County Major Industria! Developments December 1999
Site Selection Report 19 � pCl
�k �� ��"'�
CHAPTE� 4
�UMMARY AND CONCLIJSIONS
RESULTS
`ihe apptication of the camparative site
evaluation criteria is sumrnaz�ized in Table 1. As
sumrnarized in Table I, the sites, their tatai
score, and their ranking are as follows:
l. Rocky Ford
2. I 90 East
3. Martin
4, Beverly Burke
5. Dodson
6. Buckshat
7. Mae Valley
The Roeky Fard site was rated as the top site
by al� five investigators. The site's high ranking
was based predatninantly on its cen#rai lacation
to three urban growth areas (Ephrata, Soap Lake
and Mases Lake), favorable transportation and
access conditians, and its incorporation of the
proposed VentureStar fa�ility. Of a11 the sites,
Racky Ford includes the largest areas of
wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat. Due ta its
proximity, the Dodson site is included in the
lands considered for inclusion in the Roeky
Fard site.
'I'he I 9p East site was rated as second best by
a11 �'ive investigators. The site's ranking was
based an its favorable transpartation and rail
access, proximity to existing industrial lands,
and nearby presez�ce of utilities. While adequate
electrical power capaoity is available to serve
ir�dustrial activities at this site, heavy industriai
use would utilize all remaining capacity of the
Rocky Ford substation.
The iVlartin site was rated third best by three of
the five investigators; it was rated fifth best by
the other two investigators. Much like the I 9U
East site, the site's ranking was based on its
favorable transportation and rail access,
environmental faators, and presence af utilities
inaluding gas. Of all the sites, Martin had the
least amount of environmentally-sensitive iaz�ds.
The main disadvantage at this site is the
relatively low electrical pawer capacity.
The Beverly Burke site was rated fourth best by
three of the �ve inves�igators; and it was.rated
as fifth best by two investigatars. The primary
disadvantage of the site is its relatively small
size. It also may be bettex suitad ta freeway
commerciai use.
The Dodson site was rated third best by two of
the five investigators; it was rated fourth best by
tw� investigators; and it was rated as fifth best
by one investigatar. The site's ranking was
based on its favarable transpor�ation access,
proximity to existing industrial lands, and
nearby presence of utiliti�s. The rnain
disadvantage at this site is the nearby presence
af residential development.
The Baekshat site was rated sixth best by all
five inv�stigators. The site conditions
thernselves were not necessarily unfavorable;
however, a large portion of the area was alxeady
designated as industrial zone. Further, the type
of industry likely to locate t�.ere would be
agricultural-related, which can be toaated within
resaurce lands of the County.
The Mae Va11ey site was rated last by alI five
investigators. The site has distinct disadvantages
of being distant from state highways, access
Grant County Major Industrial Developments IJecember 1999
Site Selectian Report 20 1'c�
�
�
�
CHAPTER 4... ...SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
through residential areas, close proximity to
Vloses Lake, and distance to utilities.
Any of the �ve top-rated sites would be an
acceptable location for designation as a major
industrial development. The Rocky Ford and I
90 East sites appear to be clearly rated more
favorably than the others, followed closely by
the Martin site.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this study, the follo.wing
sites are listed in order of highest potential and
recommended for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners for designation as a
master planned location for major industrial
development:
1. Rooky Ford
2. I 90 East
3. Martin
4. Beverly Burke.
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
Site Selection Report 21 PCI
Public Comm�nts
On Noyember I7, 1999, a publia workshop was
conducted to present the draft itndings of the
site selection process and to seek pubiic
connment regarding the patential designatian af
master pianned locations for major industrial
develapment. Prior ta th� warkshop, notice of
the meeting was published in several area
newspapers ar�d broadcast on local radio. In
additian, mare than SQO property awners in the
vicinity of the top-ranked sites were natified by
Ietter of the meeting.
A list of those in attendance at the public
workshop is included in Appendix C. Written
public .comments received are included in
Appendix D and summarized below. The
foltowing summarizes bath written and aral
comments received at the pubiic workshap, both
from those citizens in attendance and thc
rnembers of the advisory eammittee.
The following coznnnents were received:
l. Camment: Edward Sivula, Ephrata, WA —
Mr. Sivula owns land along Raad 10 and is
concerned abaut the irnpact of designation
of the Rocky Ford MID on his land
d�vetopment and use options.
Response: Under the recentiy adopted
Comprehensive Plan, residentiai
deveiopment along Road 10 is either "Rural
Residential 1" (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres}
or "Rural Remote" (1 dweiiing unit per 24
acres}. Other iands within the propased
MID designation are designated as
"Rangeland" (1 dwelling unit per 44 acres).
If desi�nated as a MID, developtnent within
the boundaries of the, site wauld be limited
prinnarily ta industrial development.
Lirnited, law-d�nsity residential
development {such as 1 dwelling unit per 40
acres) may alsa be allawed. Fina1
detern�ination of allowable land use within a
MID will be determined as part of the
Camprehensive Plan amendment and
subsequent development re�xlations, as
adopted by the Board � of County
Commissianers.
2. Comment: Debbie Rabel, Mases Lake, WA
— Ms. Rabel urges the committee to
preserve rural character and agricultural
lands in selecting lands for industrial
development.
Respanse; Under the requirements of RCW
3G.70A.367, several criteria must b�
satisfied in order ta designate , a MID.
Among them are requirements to;
a. Establish development regulations that
ensure urban growth wili not occur fn
nonurban areas adjacent ta. the MID (i.e.,
protect rurai character); and
h. Make provision to mitigate adverse
impacts oz� designated agricultural lands.
Priar to adaption of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Pian to designate any MIDs,
a study will be conducted to ensure
compliance with each of the requirements of
th� GMA, including thos� listed above.
3. Comment: What are the tax ramifications of
land included within a designated MID?
Grat�t County Majar Inciustrial Developments Decem6er 1999
Site Selection Report 22 pCl
�
�
�
CHAPTEI2 5... ...PUBLIC RESPONSE
Response: According to the Grant County
Assessor, County real property tax is based
on actual land use rather than land use
designation as may be assigned by a
comprehensive plan or zoning code. Even
though a parcel may be designated as
"industrial", it will be taxed based on its
actual use. Therefore, if a parcel is curcently
vacant or in agricultural use, its taxation
will continue to be based on that use until
such time as industrial development actually
occurs on the parcel or on neighboring
parcels. Once industrial development begins
to occur on neighboring parcels, the parcel
valuation may be effected by value of
adjacent, industrial lands. A letter from the
Grant County Assessor further clarifying
this important issue is included in Appendix
D.
4. Comment: Why is productive agricultural
land included within a proposed MID?
Response: While a goal of the GMA and on
the Grant County Comprehensive Plan is to
protect and preserve agricultural lands, there
is no outright prohibition of their inclusion
in urban growth areas when needed for
conversion to other uses. Some of the
proposed MIDs include land that is
productive agricultural land designated as
resource lands of long-term commercial
significance in the Comprehensive Plan. In
selecting and evaluating sites for poiential
MID designation, inclusion of agricultural
lands was evaluated and rated negatively. In
many cases, however, lands especially well
suited for industrial development also
happened to be in agricultural production.
The identification of the site as a potential
MID, in many cases, reflects continued
conversion of agricultural lands for
industrial purposes.
Even though lands currently in productive
agriculture are included within a proposed
VIID and designated for conversion to
industrial land use, the net loss of
agricultural production in the County may
be negligible. Irrigation water received from
the Columbia Basin Project may be
transferred from the agricultural land
designated for conversion to industrial use
to other non-irrigated land within the
Columbia Basin Project. Thus, agricultural
land taken out of production by conversion
to industrial use will be replaced with new
agricultural land.
5. Comment: Why designate Rocky Ford as a
"master planned location for major
industrial development" under� the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.367? Aren't the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.36S more
appropriate given the proposed size of the
site arid the requirements of the
VentureStarTM proposal?
Response: Under the provisions of RCW
36.70A.365, Grant County is authorized to
designate a major industrial development
outside of an urban growth area on a"case-
by-case" basis. Under the provisions of
RCW 36.70A.367, the County may identify
nat more than two locations for major
industrial activity in advance of specific
proposals by an applicant. Such land bank
availability will enhance the County's
ability to attract new industrial activity by
offering expeditious siting.
The case-by-case procedure under the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.365 for
designating sites for major industrial
development may result in an economic
disadvantage when a business must make a
location d�cision expeditiously.
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
Site Selection Report 23 PCI
CHAPTER 5.. o ...PUBLIC ItESPONSE
Because the primary intent far designatian
of the Rocky Ford site is ta accammodate
the VentureStarTM propasal, it may be
prudent nat to use one of the Caunty's two
oppartunities to desi�ate a Iand bank under
the provisians af RCW 36.74A.367, giuen
the apparent low probability of its
develaptnent. Instead, if the devetopment of
the VentureStarTM proposal appears more
likely in the future, the site could be
designated for major industrial development
under the provisions of RCW 36,70A,3b5.
6. Comment: Why does the Rocky Fard site
need to be so large?
Respanse: The site as proposed is about
40,040 aeres in size. About three-fourths
{34,04Q acres) is estimated to be required
for buffer zone to accommodate the takeoff
and • landing requirements of
VentureStarT�. Other portions of the
propased site, inoluding those nearer to
Ephrata and Soap Lake may be utilized for
potential industrial development ather than
VezitureStar�'M.
7. Comment: What happens if the Rock.y Pord
site is designated and the VentureStarTM
proposal fails ta materialize? Could a
limitation or "sunset clause" be included sa
that the land reverts back to its original land
use designation after a certain periad of
time?
Itesponse: A sunsei or termination clause
could be included to provide for rev�xsion
of land use designation to that currently
included in the Cornprehensive Plan.
8. �'ommeni: The iown of Mattawa supparts
designatican of the �uckshot site as an IVIID,
Respanse: Camment noted.
9. Comment: The City of' Moses Lake opposes
designation of both the Rocky Ford and T 90
East sites for several reasons, including,
arnong others, the following:
• Their limitation on future expansion of
the Mases Lake UGA as may be needed
to accommadate urban grawth;
The incluszon of prime agricultural
ground within the I 90 East site; and
* The size of the praposed MIDs.
Response: Comments noted. See response
above regarding inclusion of agricuitural
lands within MIDs.
I0. Comment: The City of Mases Lake does nat
believe that the Site Selection Repart
adequately addresses the rec}uirements af
the GMA regarding justification and
documentation of the need for a master
planned lacation for major indust�ial
d�velapment under RCW 36.70A..367.
Response: The Site Setection Report is not
intended to document compiiance with the
requirements of RCW 3G.79A.367. To
dacument that the prapos.e.d>;:MID(s) meet
the r�quirements of RCW 36.7QA.367, a
GMA. Carnpliance Assessment is currently
being prepared and will be reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners as part of
the Camprehensive Plan arnendment
process in Deaember 1999.
11. Comment: The Cities of Mases Lake and
Quincy do not intend to provide services
outside of their urban growth areas ta serve
MIDs at t�is tinne. Haw will new
infrasi:ructure required for indus�rial
develapment be pravideci?
Grant County Major IndusPria! Develapments December 1999
Site Selec#ion Report 2�4 � ' pCl
�N
�
�
�
CHAPTER 5... ...PUBLIC RESPONSE
Response; Comment noted. Tlie GiV1A.
Compliance Assessment will address means
and methods, including funding, of
necessary infrastructure to serve the
proposed MID(s). Where city services such
as sewer or water are not available or where
such services will not be offered,
infrastructure will need to be provided by
the County or the industrial user.
12. Comment: T'he advisory committee
identified property northeast of the Ephrata
UGA and airport as being suitable for
designation.
Response: The proposed Rocky Ford MID
includes an area northeast and adjacent to
the Ephrata Airport. The area includes
parcels of about 1,000 acres that are under
single ownership and designated as
"Industrial" under the Comprehensive Plan.
These parcels, taken together with
surrounding parcels to improve access, may
provide a suitable alternate to the larger
Rocky Ford site.
Summary
Based on the comments received at the public
workshop, the Board of County Commissioners :
may wish to consider the following in their
deliberation:
1. Eliminating the Rocky Ford site, as needed
to accommodate the VentureStarT�'I
proposal, from further consicleration for
designation under RCW 36.70A.367.
2. Designating the area northeast of the
Ephrata Airport (as shown on the map
included in Appendix A) as a MID.
to minimize the amount of productive
agricultural land included and to lessen the
impact to future urban growth of the City of
Moses Lake.
3. Reducing the area of the I 90 East site (as
shown on the map included in Appendix A)
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
Site Selection Report 2S PCI
iA!?�-�3��.7����,'1r� w►.�w
j �1�� �
.�► :,. .�►
��..,�
�.+��<
��"� �,,.�,._�.. �
`��i�"s"r�i's .,�ti
j ,� w� t_ltcu :
� �►��j�r.: �"�f�/
�.',�, r .: �,,,, �,�.
1' � �
� �� �����-
��.'� ���'�t�'��!�
rrl,i � �i�����1, ;? �■'}� -r ,■■ /! %,'� .: ls' �►,!r/.1�
i i�i"i 11 IR� r"� r �,• �j � j
�% . ',%s',7�i u��:UN%•�!��,�// r, ;1�iI',1,�� ��� f����
/ �� , .t�`� ituqt�I�t if�..' � �► •' �I'�C/1Ri' � x '�' �'� ��
' � j i� '� �i�.�t�./'.'� '.�t'�
.
/ a• "+" y - ;� '. .
.... ��-��.9�;� �Y..t�,, ���tt��i
.,;�j��'
,
. ��-'!�►:: ��►
-,�''�/► �►� �!/�
�f -�M► �, ./
`.,,,,�,r.. �,,�„�►,.----r : �;��
.!�►�-• ,,,��",�',��
-.,�-..•_�'�r.`'�..� �
,, ..�
�:.....
��' -
!
;
f 7 -, ��~+R,:i4 'i:i�•t
� +. ..itl\ .i►ii)i-
% � l / � 1 �t i�.��l\\�t�►�
�
�
�
S �'�
,��� t
Q�
��� � s���-
0
„� �, G✓
��
,
� °,��` ; � � .� rr*
�,.
�- -
� �
e e�.°� �'f /
�- �
�
��
�
�
.
.J
_..�..__ _:,�*
,
�� �
� �
�' �
����` ,
♦
g;e. e
' �
� �,��',�
1 �
� � l� "�
�� ' + :� '
. , �
.�=
,
N `��
Y�
� � �
s� � ����
��
��
�
� ��
a r�, _ � �
.��' 1
I �
...�--..i� i
.••�-- � , �-�,. �.
� ,
\
� .� -
��
,, �
\ l_
.'--�% ` �
.s y , �+,
�iii � �` " 1
•;;,, , /► ' �
�, � �' ,�r► 1
r' �,� � .,,�;:
♦� , 0,�4 •
�'�► '� _
, �, ,
� �1!
� �� l,
�° `t �
�-°��° �4�
� ���
,_
1�
— ,
.,
.+
►-y�,,,--= ,.�-� -�,_,► --, �r.•—
►`�"'�''��;�� �!�" ���' ' � �
� �► , ��� ,►
��� � �
` �.� ' �
� ` i� ; .�t '`�
' '�1� i� - `..,.__,_..___'_ ' . `\
.� ��+. �
`'�1� '�. ; `,�,, '`�, �_,,,,�
►w : , „ �''r�—��-,,, ;
, � � �
, l .. .,�./� � ��
• 1 .._- . � ,,,r+�
� +,,� �•�'
�� ` ��
� -��+ , � �
�� !. r �� � ,.
� ... . �t ,,,�► �l/,,,,,
�►� . . ��' ..��.+� . .. . .. ./ �
► .,� t'- ; '�t'''d� _ '►.
�. --'' =,�.",, ►� 1
''���..,,,o,�:.. ,,r , ��
�►.�'",,, �� ,,•,��� � �
�• .►� .�.r►�►
.,... ; ,
�►��"""''`r•�"�� � ♦ ,M , �
� �
\\ ��r1`. jj((11
�V,� � ((
� . . .. � " M : . �
y\�' � �... -1 . ��
���� , ,�
1 � ;,
,, .� ♦
� .
�
` \`
�
r
0
. �� � � ,� � ,, _
0
�
� ,,� � rr�
.�
� �
.
. . ,,
s � • � •
•� � � ,� � •
s • • s i � •
s ai • s ♦ •
• � .',,,•
•� s '�
.
�
,
�'�`�
,����"
► - '
i
� / � � +�'
�
L�
� �� �_ -
. -
f � �
I
r
� ..
;�
�
�'�' y
, �
��a
��
� ��
c�,►� �' �4
,
C�w�. . �1��` .�---� �`' �.
0
�
a.d.� i��`�t�f/ ��\' ", �'+
. rr�., � ��l
�T�. �� ; ` �� ,�
►f�:� �it".�l;�"'" ,,
.�� •�'�► ,, r��
�►�t'��:.- �.._._. _
;..-
'`4���ti�,.,;� , ....� i�
►�.it`=- _:-,
�-... ......
:1►�'�,�1�►.�.�
,..,,� ., ,
.:�......,,�i��.
:--��=-�.- ►�.�
�
0
'�.+.
S-
�.
�
���L'�"..�
C
� i t � � � � M � � �, !' ♦
� GR.ANT COUNTY MAJQI� INDUST'}ZIAL DE"VLEPMENT
SITING AD�IS{JRY� COMMITTEE
September 14, I999 a� 7 PM
Grant County Public Works Public Meeting Room
Sign-in Sheet
NA.ME ADDd�ESS CI.T�1 �TiTRIS.DICT'It?N PH()1Y.E
��E'h'c =``��dii%,CQ �C� cr� � �''_� C.=D d'�r G' �'''''/.% ��4'1� �3.� 'J'r'✓�y-
r /" !� c � � — �7 3
� r � ,� lU �2��SS�s L a �C.p /
�
� � L � � .� 3
u ���t�zNS tti��" C.� 51'?--�—i$ta
� c� n C :�/� , � r"� f►/j* �. , ��'� ?�--¢_�,(,�•
� D�+ ' ���+ � � tl �._.� ,��" r��, � � 3�� � a 3 �c
r�''� �' /'�.�'` •S�''��ie� ..�.:�"'= � �.�c � ` �'"",-� a� �c,ni�' ,,� ;
w
I 1.�
` � o`�j � G/ h., v' % GV't � � a ��" t ?i7� ,S
J` �JC % .. c'��t' �,�`i - .3S"'°y i
`��'O J ? c. %�S�?p�''/
� ��i � ���� .
� e.r� � ��...��-rv� os�ssta �.� � ( c3 - _dY�� L,�4C� �?l�(o� �:c��3
GRAI�IIT C�UNTY' MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DE'�TELOPMENT
SITING ADVISQR� C�}M1VIITTEE �
Qctaber 6, 1999 a� 7 PM
Grant County Public Works Public Meeting Room
;,:��: ,� : _
k�� -Jr,..�'� ��
1VAME ADDiI�ESS C'ITY/ JLTRISDICTIQN � PHONE�
'� Cc � l 7 0� � rr � �/�'" `7sc�- y�� 2�
�''C� .--- h. �t1. „ , �to�i—
. ----.-
I ;�'� � ���., Po �x ��� � � �. . ��'r-�.-, � � 1�t • �.., Z�s�-ob3 �
� . -_
� t� , ` �.i t, t
S i�. �. 'J . � r,3 7 ? !o G, --
/ rt r� `
1 �-'v'r �✓ �y- D �.al k' � 40 ` L iL� . .�+� � f,� C % .�1= •C�Cj � �'
<, �� ' � , , " !
� �1 .� �/ i �
� � ,r � � i ..� '"1, / '9 -
�' � '} :.7 �u"`J�� ; +..ri� f r !" �:•�.. ���✓. i .. c�..� /' � ! -!" 4 :�u: .. t. /3y�1'�, :� .
r %
�4 ,P ,�e�j0 ,�t/'. 2�.,rs �j /�'� � �',T' L' S h 2 " 5r�lo
.a� ��. " � � - 7S�i� � �
�,a cL �C C. t�':<<l�.0 1��'-�F- , a-� lq ca, 3�b^- � 3�`-�
=� s.� � � �'�:� a�t r.�,"lG'ist-�� � �% G.�� ' rj�•�%.�
A. {P / "m � � 4v++ � / � /
• , � �`Ur c� ,�" �"G' ��.Z
> j �/ t�'r�ou�',er- � �G,�S�� " ..1�` � , ��vs�s �1r'�e, �� iG�"-�'9i/
� /rr7 ,`�IC:r� i�rr 1�2Glf�' lir� � /1/• GC.� U�ncC — iui� %fS ?—' lf'i ?kt
¢ %ri ' /V � !� H L �` ''�,'3 t3 e •- � � % !�� r9 � G7 � e � t; � 1- 1.� +rZ �. t-+.} .� � .3.� ' t� i �
� � � hr ov C � �f .�V � G' r'.�/� � - 50 ��
'6 , � ,a �'e�• � � !l� � �'
�
�-�
�_ _
-� GR.ANT COUNTY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SITING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 10, 1999 @ 7 PM
Grant County Law and Justice Building Multi-purpose Room
Sign-in Sheet
GRAl'�T COUNTY MAJt�R II'�11I}USTRIAL DE��L�PIVIENT
SITING ADVIS4R� CUMNiITTEE �f
PUBLIC `t�4RKSHt�P
November 17, 1999 �a % PM
Grax�t County Public Works Building Pubiic Meeting Room
Sign-in Sheet
�`
GRANT CC?I.7NTY MAJC)R INDIJSTRIAL DEVELt�PMENT
SITING �I3VISC)R.� COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WOR.I�.SHOP
November 17, 1999 @ 7 PM
Grant County Public Works Building Public Meeting Room
Sign-in Sheet
GRAN'T C(JUNT� MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELt�PMENT
SITING A.DVISOR� CC}MMITTEE
�
PUBLIC �TORK�HOP
I`�ovember 17, I999 @ 7 PM
Grant County Pubiic Works Building Pu.blic Meeting Room
Sign�in Sheet
� APPEl�1DI:� D PUBLI+C C �►MMENT
�11 7 1'I ��i �? "� {� �? eZ%�%'' r:i ,.�
�o'���- , .
�"^o� ZSgo —i�SL
� Z 8 8 b `"M �.�-�'°� e� d3
'/V� /�I ' I'J �'2,� tr LS Z. j
� � n � � � �°�►��.3
�
• ����� (J�
�
� b �n o�{ .M 1� �S 7�.�'t J--� rh a 5 � b v, Q-� n� �v. o�
�
�� t
J
1 � � � � � i � �i"! � � � O � � � J �! � � - 1 � � 1..,. t {'''� � � 1 � �' r1 W V O � � � ��
� i � 4
►o v, �o "?m o a c� }o l�a t�...�. � t� � 0 3„n a� ,,,..�,° t� Sa�O�' `� �'�-'.�� �"� `��Y� � i
J f f
ib��„ .�'i bvlr5o�o-{C1 ��jY� t�Pt� �bt,�,M �_>
+� r �
' "a a � ' ` �n,� �� � 'a�t� �a �% ` � Q � 1�?� ti
�r �
ui o � � � � 7� � � � ..L- 5 n �v,,�.�...�. h �f �-.n � o,�, a-�- o� � s�o �� n � a- y �o-n v� S }��'�+ a -�
J �
�- � � -� � � g a-� �� -{ o�.. �.n�� v� a-.� � �� �-, n � -a�rn /�. � a � �- � � ` � � r�a �� �'� �..
� G� '
n� 3-1�1 1�'' .,,,�,-1 b�;,.,5 � �' � -1 a' ►�-�C '�-,n v�1 l,c� � o � �-m �� � �., � 5 � a � �° ?,� 5-; �- t,��s ts
� !
�► ►�-� � �, �'- -�.'�"� -�„ .,,�� , � d ,� � , ��, ; �l p'"� t.. � �.� �{ � m�- �t o 1 p� u o ���,� � �.� � � � � �,,
' 2ai-�� }.n��_1 /.�jac�
b � b 1 ` � ( � a,/�1
_AI:�SILE :P'?TCA_ '� .�
�`�x, C9� �y0$� tdav 17 '99 :.. �^� a. �1
D�bb�,e Rob��,
1579�8 Ttaad 2 NE
Mo�e�� Lake, w�, ��83�
1laveaaab�r i� , 1999
To the Grant Caunty Fl�nniriq Gommi�ioa,
Flrst, I want ts� �ay thank you f�r� h�►vinq �.liis ii�tening session.
Ast you �c�ntinu� to ple�n for th� aconcacic r�awth cf �rant �'ounty,
pl�ne� ne� prudent r��id pres+a�v� our rural a�ta�spite��. Plea�e do
riot gat qseedy r�nd i�apa�tient.
Much c�f Qu� land i� u�ad �'or a�griculturai i pu�poae�e ihi� land
n�eda to be p���arvad �s�r �.h3.r� purpaas�, bacause ou� qrowing
goplula�ionm wiil n�ad to b� ied. Al�+a, t2tos�+a who chase �Cc� live
in our �c�unty are� h�r� becaus� wa like the i rurai atmo�sphere. 1n
youz° planni»qr pleae� uae ths c�round th�t is not suitable for
agriculture. �
. ,
si rely,
� Cl �
��k#bie� Rdb
i
I
�
�FriC� t�F THE
.. ,
�ON McDOWALL
.ssessoA
�VEl.YN +rt. HlTZROTN
» �F oevurr
3AFRY R100S
: -�EF hPPPh�SER
November 24, 1999
P.O. 8C;X 37
EPHRATA. WASHINGTON 98823
Telephone: 505-754-2011
Fax: 509-7542011 Ext. 352
��--��� �� G
i�1� �
�� �iOV 2 9 a�qq �
GR���T CQ. P�.AI�NlNG
TtJ: Scott Clark, Lon� Range Planner
r, ,,�
�
PRUM; Don McDawali, Assessor ��
RE: Assessments in ptatential Industriai Zone
The assessed valu� of the property included inside the potentiai industrial zone will not
change jusi because of the new industrial zoning, it will continue to be valued as it is
presently beir�g used<
Some of the land in these zones that is not government owned is in the Farm and
Agricult�aral current use program. Those parcels can remain in the program as long as
they continue ta meet the requirements or be switched to ather less restrictive open space
programs.
As �ve understand, there will be an zndustrzai zone and a buffer zone. After land has been
actually purchased in these zanes we will use sales in tlxase areas as camparable sales in
arriving at the assessed value in our next revaluatian cycle. Small isolated industriai sales
will not significar�tly increase all of the parcels.
Ii definite restrictions are piaced an the parccls in either zane that also will be taken into
consideration
�
�
�
� �.
G RA l�T T
COUNTY
r , �
GMA C OMPLIANCE AS SE S SMENT
FOR DESIGNATION OF
� � � � � � � � / �
� , � i: � � � , �
DEPART1�1rIENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LOIeTG RANGE PLANNING
��� DECEMBER 1999
Proulx Cearns, Inc.
CHAPTEit 1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1
BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................1
RELATEDDOCUMENTS ..........................................................................................1
Grant Caur�ty Comprehensive Plan ........................................................................ l
IndustrialLand Use Inventory ...............................................................................1
SiteSelection Report ..............................................................................................1
SEPAErivixonmental Ghecklist .............................................................................2
Coranty Coznmissioners' Hearin� . .........................................................................2
RP,GULATORY AUTHORI'TY ...................................................................................2
PURFOSEOF STUDY..........o .....................................................................:................3
ECGNO1ViIC DEVELOPM�NT IN GRANT CfJUNTY.......� .....................4
QVERVIEW.................................................................................................................4
EXISTINGCONDITIQNS ........................................................................:..................4
KeyFeatures of the Econamy ................................................................................4
Composition of Grant County's Economic Base ...................................................5
Chan�ging Composition ofEznployment ................................a..............................a7
NEEDSASSESSMENT ..........................o..............................................................,.....8
STATUS AND �U'I"L40I� UF MA34R INDUSTRIES .............................................9
Agricuiture................................................................ .............................<........,....9
Manufacturing................................................................ ....e......................o...,.....1Q
ROLE tJF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .............................................................a. l l
DesiredLevels of Jab Growth .............................................:................................11
Desired Levels af Commerciat & Industriai Expansion ................................•,....12
Reductian in the Level af Poverty Rate.........o ..................................................... i2
Reduction in the Caverali Unemployment Rat� ....................................................14
Growth in Per Capita Income ....................o....e...,........o,.............,....,....................14
EC9NOMICFC;RECAST ......................................................................................»...14
CHAPTEl2 3 INDIJSTRIAL LAND DEM�iNm/CAPACITY ANALYSIS ......................16
4VER"VIEW ....................a....................,...,...,.......>..,.....,..,..a.,.,.........o........................16
II�TDUST]C2IAL LAt�1D DEM�.ND �ORECAST .........................................................16
EmpioymentDensiiy ..............................................................o........................,....16
Land�upply Reduction Factor .................................................e...........................16
MarketSafety Factor ............................................................................................18
LandDemand ........................................................................................»..............18
INDUSTRIAL LAN17 USE INVENTORY ................................................................18
DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS .........................................................................2�
CHAPTER 4
INFRASTRUCTT..� LIEVELOPMENT PLAN ........................................22
OVERV�IEW ......................................................<....................................,..................,22
WA'I'ER SUPFLY ......................................................................................................22
GeneralDevelopment Issues.....< .................................4....................,..,...............,22
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
CMA Compliance Assessment i �'e�
�
�
�
� TABLE OF CONTENTS...
ExistingConditions ..............................................................................................22
CHAPTER 4 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Continued)
WATER SUPPLY (Continued)
NeedsAssessment ................................................................................................24
PotentialCosts ......................................................................................................24
WASTEWATERDISPOSAL ....................................................................................24
General Development Issues ................................................................................24
ExistingConditions ..............................................................................................25
NeadsAssessment ................................................................................................25
PotentialCosts ......................................................................................................26
TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................26
ExistingConditions ..............................................................................................26
Projected Traffic Generation ................................................................................26
Projected Impacts on Transportation System ......................................................27
NeedsAssessment ................................................................................................28
PotentialCosts ......................................................................................................29
PUBLICSERVICES ..................................................................................................29
General Development Issues .........................................................e......................29
ProjectedDemand ................................................................................................29
Projected Impact on Public Facilities :.................................................................30
NeedsAssessment ................................................................................................30
CHAPTER5 FINANCIAL PLAN o......m....o.o.......e........e.........e......e ......................................32
OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................32
ESTIlVIATED PROPER'I'Y TAX REVENiJE ............................................................32
AVAILABLE SOURCES OF REVENiJE .................................................................33
TransportationFunding .........................:..............................................................33
Capital Facilities Funding ....................................................................................33
DeveloperFunding ...............................................................................................34
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Grant County Industrial Land Use Inventory Database
Mapping of Potential MID Sites
SEPA Environmental Checklist
LIST OF TABLES •
Table 2-1 Industrial Employment Forecast: 1998-2018 .............................................................15
Table 3-1 Employment Densities in Washington Counties ....................................
....................
Table 3-2 Industrial Employment Density Analysis ...................................................................17
Table 3-3 Summary of Industrial Land Reduction Factors ........................................................18
Table 3-4 Industrial Land Inventory ...........................................................................................20
Table 4-1 Estimated Trip Generation ..........................................................................................27
Table4-2 Estimated Employees .................................................................................................30
Table 4-3 Estimated Capital Facility Impacts .............................................................................31
Table5-1 Estimated Assessed Value ..........................................................................................32
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment ii PCI
TABLE t3F CONTENTS...
T�ble 5-2 Estimated �nnual Tax Revenue .................................................................................33 �
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-I A�iaultural Complex Share ofTotal Employment and Labar Incazne .......................7
Figure 2-2 Grant County Emplayment by Major �ectar ................................................................8
Figure 2-3 Annual Change in Tatal Emplayment ........................................................................12
Figure 2-4 Ratio of Services-Producing ta Goods-Praducin�; Jobs .............................................13
Figure 2-5 Grant County's UnempioymenC Rate as.a Percent of Washington State's Rate........13
Figure 2-6 Grant County's Per Capita Income as a Percent af the Washington State Average ..13
Grant County Major Indusfrial Develapments December 1999
GMA Campliance Assessment iii PCI �
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Washington State Legislature
addressed the demand for siting of major
industrial facilities by passage of Engrossed
Senate Bill No. 5019, implementing a process
for siting such activities outside urban growth
areas. The Legislature found that the existing
case-by-case procedure authorized under RCW
36.70A.365 for evaluating and approving such a
site may operate to a community's economic
disadvantage when a�rm, for business reasons,
must make a business location decision
expeditiously. The Legislature found that a pilot
program under which a bank of major industrial
development locations outside urban growth
areas could be designated in advance of specific
proposals by an applicant would be useful.
In 1998, the Legislature found that to fulfill the
economic goals of the GMA they must "ensure
equitable opporhznities to secure prosperity for
distressed areas, rural communities, and
disadvantaged populations by promoting
urban/rural economic links and by prornoting
value-added product development, business
networks, and increased exports from rural
areas." The Legislature expanded the limited
authorization for designating land banks for
major industrial activity in advance of specific
proposals by an applicant to several counties,
including Grant County.
two master planned locations for major
industrial development.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Grant County Comprehensive Plan
Grant County's Comprehensive Plan was
adopted on September 30, 1999. The Plan
includes policy statements, GMA elements and
environmental review documents. The Plan
includes a profile of Grant County (Chapter 3—
Grant County Profile) which presents
population, demographics, population and
employment projections, economic
development and housing overviews. 'The
socioeconomic data included in Chapter 3 forms
the basis for the work of this study. Economic
development in Grant County is summarized in
Chapter 2 of this study.
Approval criteria and a process for designation
of master planned resorts for major industrial
developments are also included in the
Comprehensive Plan. However, no sites have
been designated.
Industrial Land Use Inventory
An extensive inventory of land zoned or suitable
for industrial development throughout the
county was prepared as part of the economic
development study conducted for the
Designation of major industrial developments as Comprehensive Plan (1998 Economic Profile of
authorized under the GMA will allow Grant ��t County, Chase Economics & Reed
County to enhance attraction of new industrial Hansen & Associates). The industrial land use
businesses by providing a land base of suitable inventory is included herein as Appendix A.
industrial sites in advance of specific proposals �
to locate a business in Grant County. Grant Site Selection Report
County has a window of opportunity — until
December 31, 1999 — to amend its � their ordinance adopting the Comprehensive
Comprehensive Plan to designate not more than plan, the Board of County Commissioners
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 1 PCI
� ' CIEIAPTER 1... ...INTRODUCTION
II�IIA�III��I�M�iI�
required that an advisory comrnittee be formed
to identify and evaluate potential locatio�s and
recommend at ieast two areas to be designated
as MIDs. From September through Naveznber
1999, the �ommittee idenkifed and evaluated
seven poteratial sites.
�`oilowing preparation of a draft site selection
repart, the Advisory Committee conducted a
public worlcshop, and formulated their
recarnmendatians to the Board of County
Cammissioners. Tl�ie final Site Seleation Report,
bound under separate cover, ranked the top four
sites.
SEPA Environmental Checklist
To compiy with the requirements af th�
Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(WAG 19i-11), an environrnental assessrnent
was prepared in the form of an expanded SEPA
Checklist to supplement the environrnenta�
analysis included in the Comprehensive Flan.
The environrnental assessment evaluated the
potenti�l impacts to the natural and built
environment p�suant to WAC 197-11 and
RCW 43.21.C. The SEPA environmenial
checklxst is included as Appendix C.
County Commisstoners Hearing
On December 6, 1999, tk�e Grant Courity Board
of Cornmissioners conducted a public hearing
regarding an amendment to ihe Grant County
Comprehensive PIan to designate master
planned Iocations £or major industri�:l
develapmeni. The Board will reviewed the Site
Selection Report and the public comrnent
received at the Advisory Comrnittee's pubiic
workshop. Additional public comment was also
taken. Following their review, the Board
continued their hearing for final action at a tater
date.
Under RCW 36.70A.3b7, Grant County, in
aonsultation wit$ cities, is authc�rized ta
designate a bank of no mare than twa master
planned locations for major industrial
developments, such as manufacturing or
industrial businesses, outside of Urban Growth
Ar�as {UGAs} that:
• Requires a parcei of land so large that no
suitable parcel� are available within an
urban growth area; or
� Is a natural resource-based industry
requiring a location near agricultural land
upoa� which it is dependent; or
• Requires a location with characteristics such
as proximity to transportation facilities or
related industries such that there is no
suitable location in an urban growth area.
A rnaster planned location far major indus�rial
developments rnay be included in the urban
industriai land bank for the County if criteria,
including the following, are met;
�Tew infrastructure is provided fot� andJor
appiicable impact fees are paid;
2. Tzansit-oriented site planning and �raffic
demand managemeni programs are
itnplemented;
3. Buffers are provided betwesr� the major
industriai develapment and adjacent
nanurban areas;
4. Environmentai prateation inciuding air and
water quality' has been addressed and
provided far;
5. Development regulations are establish�d to
Grant County Majar Industria! Developments �� December �999
GIbfA Compliance Assessment 2 �'Cj
�
�
�
�
CHAPTER 1... ...INTRODUCTIOIoi
6.
7
ensure that urban growth will not occur in
adjacent nonurban areas;
Provision is made to mitigate adverse
impacts on designated agricultural lands,
forest lands, and mineral resource lands;
The plan for major industrial development
is consistent with the County's development
regulations established for protection of
critical areas; and
8. An inventory of developable land has been
conducted as provided in RCW 36,70A.365.
In selecting master planned locations, priority
should be given to locations that are adjacent to,
or in close proximaty to, an UGA. Final
approval of inclusion of a master planned
location for major industrial development is
considered an adopted amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. Inclusion or exclusion of
master planned locations may be cansidered at
any time prior to Deeember 31, 1999, and is not
subject to the requirements of RCW
36.70A.130(2) regarding annual amendments.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to analyze Grant
County's industrial land needs to sustain
economic development in Grant County over
the next 20 years. Economic development goals
and policies for Grant County are presented in
Chapter 6— Economic Development Element of
the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. They
include the following goals related to industrial
development:
Goal ED-1: Encourage diverse employment
opportunities that satisfy the socioeeonomic
needs of Grant County Residents.
Goal ED-Z: Encourage economic growth
through planning and development of the
region's public services and facilities' capacity.
Goal ED-3: Ensure an adequate supply of
commercial and industrial sites to provide
opportunity for new and expanding businesses
to locate or remain in Grant County.
The intention of designation of master planned
locations for industrial activities is to further
these goals and encourage a stable, diverse
economy capable of supporting family wage
jobs. The tax base created from new industrial
facilities provides funding necessary to support
quality schools, public facilities, fire and
emergency services, law enforcement and other
needed public services.
Designating a sufficient supply of land for
industrial purposes is important to Grant County
because of the impact of industrial use on the
standard of living and quality of life. Without
adequate industrial land, Grant County will lose
high, family wage jobs and an adequate tax base
necessary to sustain healthy communities.
Advantages of industrial development include:
• Industrial users typically bear a
disproportionate share of the tax base,
lowering taxes for residents;
• Industrial users participate in funding
schools, parks, and recreational facilities
through property taxes and levies;
• Industrial users provide jobs for the
community, usually at higher wages,
allowing the community to provide family-
wage employment and provide
opportunities for our children to remain or
return to the cornmunity; and
� Industrial employment allows a higher
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compltance Assessment 3 PCP
� CIIA.PTER 1... ...INTIZO)JUCTION
�. .�.,_.�._..�
��
proportion of wages to °`stay" in Grant
Caunty through iocal purahases, which
translates into highex sales and use tax
revenues.
�
Grant Gounty Majar Industrtal l?evelopments December 1999 �
GMA Compliattce Assessment 4 pCj
CHAPTER 2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMElVT Il� GRANT COUNTY
OVERVIEW
A healthy economy is essential to the vitality
and quality of life in Grant County. While the
natural setting of the County largely determines
the parameters within which economic
development may occur, virtually every other
feature of community life is dependent on the
area's economy.
To be able to provide adequate employment
opportunities for the projected population
growth during the planning period, the economy
must grow. Economic growth also requires
investment in the infrastructure of the County,
including transportation facilities, �vater and
sewer systems, and private utilities. Having
industrial and commercial sites available, ready-
to-develop at an affordable price is a
prerequisite to effectively participating in the
competition for new companies.
Iri recent decades, employment growth has
faltered in resource-based industries, such as
fartning and forest products, which has provided
the economic foundations for many rural areas
in the state. Of particular concern is a group of
rural counties, many of whom have not shared
in the state's recent economic prosperity. With
double-digit unemployment rates, depressed per
capita incomes, and low rates of employment
growth, these "distressed" counties indicate they
have been left behind economically.
Although Grant County has been designated as a
"distressed" county, and high unemployment
rates continue to persist, Grant County is among
the state' S leading counties in population growth
and employment gains during the 1990s.
Grant County seeks to maintain and enhance its
quality of life while achieving benefits of
growth and minimizing any negative effects.
Our vision defines our future and how we will
respond to growth and change. Our vision
centers on the following basic economic value:
"Promote a healthy, diversified and
sustainable local and regional economy by
supporting existing local businesses,
making prudent infrastructure investments,
and encouraging new business that is
compatible with and complementary to the
communitv. "
Grant County's vision for its economic future
focuses on such key words/phrases as vitality,
diversity, quality-of-life, sustainability and
growth. As Grant County moves into the
twenty-first century, it has the opporiunity to
excel and enjoy the beneiits of balanced
economic growth without compromising its
quality-of-life. Effective local economic
development planning and well-informed
decision-making and action are needed to
achieve these goals.
This chapter documents the methodology used
to forecast employment. Future employment
will be evaluated based on historic trends and
future demand factors, including the impacts of
the economic development strategies included
in the Comprehensive Plan and summarized in
this chapter.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Key Features of the Economy
Economic conditions in Grant County are well
documented in Chapter 6— Economic
Development Element and Technical Appendix
A of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
(Proulx Cearns, Inc., September 1999). Key
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment S PCI
C�IAP'I'E� 2... ... ]�CiJ1�1C)MIC DEV�LQPMENT IN GRAI�tT CC?TJl�ITY
features of the economy are summarized below
Like many rural counCies in Bastern
Washington, Grant County's econamy is largely
dependent upon agriculture and its value-added
campanion of food pracessing. However, Grant
County's econamy is far fram bein� one-
dirnensionai; there are complexities and a
dynamic quality to the locai econamy. Tt�e data
presented below r�veal some important trends
that wiil help guide decisions on ecanr�tnic
development within Grant Coutity. The
follawing Iist pravides an� overview and
summary of som� af #he icey themes that stand
aut frozn the econamic pra�le af Grant Caunty
present�d in the appendix.
Grant County's population has increased
by more than on�-fourth thus far in the
1990s. With an average annual rate of 3.�
percent, Grant County's pop�lation was
ranked third among al� Washington State
counties in the 199Qs. In-migration has
had a significant role in the growth of
Grant County's population.
Th� labor foree in Grant County has
grown even faster than population with an
average annual rat� of 3.8 percent during
the 1990s, co�pared with 2.5 p�rcent
�nr�ual growth for the state's labor force.
Ernployment growth in Grant Caunty has
also been robust during the 1990s, with an
average annual rate of 4.3 percent. Grant
County's unemptoyment, one af the key
indicators of a region's ecanomic heatth,
has persistentty rernained abave the
statewide average. One of reasans %r high
uriemployment--designating Grant
County as "economically distressed"—is
the strong seasanality of the cou7nty's
leading sectors of agricuiture and food
�a�°ocessing.
In contrast to the natianal and state
economies, Grant County is highly
dependent upon goods-praducing
industries oi agricuiture, const�ruction, �nd
manufacturaing. I�griculture and food
processing remains the County's leading
empioy�r and the largest component of the
iocal economy. Grant County is well
endowed with resources that have creat�d
a si�nificant camparative advantage in
agricultural production. The County is part
oi one of nation's most productive and
diversified agricultuxal regions.
• Grant County has lagged behind the state
in emerging techna�ogy sectors as well as
trade and services sectors.
Personal income—the mast broad-based
m.�asure of purchasing power—amounted
ta $1.2 billion in 1996 (tYre latest year
availatile). Per capita incarne in Gr�t
County was $18,3 66 in i 996; roughly
three-fourths of the nation and statewide
average.
• Personal incorne consists of three
cornpanents--net earnings, property
incomes, and trans%r paytnents. Net
earnings—payments for labor seivices—�
represents three��fths of the County's
total personal incorne. The remaining two-
fifths are split between property incarne
(e.g., dividends, interest and rent} and
transfer payments. Trans£ers in Grant
County--cornpased of retirem�r�i ar�d
disability insuxanae, medical payrnents,
unemploym�ent insurance; veterans'
benefits, and inaame znaintenance--
represents one of the highest shares of ail
COUTitiCS,
Compositivn of Grant Caunty's Econrarr�sc
Base
Recent analysis of Grant County's econamy
fou�d that a number of sectors camprise the
economic base of the looal area, Also known as
the export base, thase sectors sell theiz� prad�.cts
and services to non-lacal markets and th�reby
brin� �e�r dollars inta the local �aanomy. Tliese
export-oriented sectors, i� turn, support a cast of
nor�-export sectors witi�,zn th� local area. The
Grant Counry Major Industrial I3evelopments December 1999
tiM� �ompliance Assessment 6 PGI
�
�
CHAPTER 2... ... ECONOMIC DE�ELOPMENT IN GRANT COUNTY
following sectors, in r•ank order, represent the
key elements of Grant County's economic base.
Agriculture. Grant County is one of the
nation's leading counties in agricultural
production. In 1997, the value of
agricultural production in Grant County was
$5.5 billion; ranked second among all
counties in the state. With abundant land,
plentiful water for irrigation, and a mild
climate, Grant County produces a
cornucopia of food and fiber products.
Grant County is a diversified agricultural
production powerhouse, with one out of
every seven dollars of the state's total
agricultural production coming from
producers in the county.
Grant County is a microcosm of the dual
agricultural system of the Pacific
Northwest. Certain portions of the
Northwest produce high-valued specialty
crops for fresh sales and processing; Grant
County leads the state in growing some of
these crops including, mint, grass seed,
carrots, green peas, sweet corn (for
processing), and onions (storage). The other
subsector of Pacific Northwest agriculture is
more traditional in nature and do�inated by
the production of grains (including
potatoes), livestock, and forage crops; here
again, Grant County plays a dominant role,
leading the state in the. production. of dry
edible beans, potatoes, hay, and sugarbeets.
Agriculture lies at the center of a complex
of producers, processors, wholesalers, and
services. Agricultural producers in Grant
County purchase services, fertilizers, seeds,
farm machinery and credit in the area and
deliver crops to local processors and
marketers, who add further value to the
products before shipping them out of the
county. In addition to generating income
and employrnent for the region, direct and
related agricultural activity contributes to
the county's economic critica� mass, making
other unrelated businesses viable.
In Grant County, this agricultural complex
of production, processing and services
accounts for upwards of a third of the
county's total employment and labor
earnings (i.e., proprietor income, wages• and
salariesj. Combined, this agricultural
complex is by far the largest part of Grant
County's economic base.
2. Manufacturin�. Manufacturing in Grant
County is dominated by food processing
firms, but other categories of transportation
equipment, primary metals, and printing
have seen substantial growth in the past ten
years. Most of these rnanufactured
products—particularly processed food
products, primary metals, and transportation
equipment—are exported outside of the
county.
3. A�ricultural services. Based on the broader
Columbia Basin region's comparative
advantage in agricultural production, Grant
Courity has seen vigorous growth in
agricultural service firms over the last
decade. These agricultural services-ranging
from crop preparation, planting &
harvesting, veterinary services, and farm
lalior & manageznent services—are part of
the critical mass of agricultural activity
within the county.
4. Transportation c4c utilities. Transportation—
most notably trucking and warehousing—
has grown over the years as part of the
county's agricultural complex.
Transportation provides a critical service in
delivering crops and livestock to regional
processors and. marketers, and later to
deliver value-added products to markets
outside of the region. Trucking and
warehousing is the largest transport sector
in Grant County, one that has shown steady
growth over the last two decades.
Although utilities, like transportation, are
often viewed as supportive sectors within
the local economy, electrical generation in
Grant County is a part of the economic base.
The Grant County Public Utility District
(PUD) owns two generating darns with a�
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
CMA Compliance Assessment 7 PCI
�HAPTER 2..0 ... ECUNOMIC DEVELC}PMENT II� GRANT CtJUNTY
combined generating capacity c�f nearly
2,400 megawatts. Besides o£fering ane of
the lowest power rates to indust�°y in the
nation, the PUD sslls rnuch of its power to
60.0%
55.49G
$o.��
45,Q%
d0,p%
35.0%
30.07{
25.0'%
2Q.Q'A
other utilities. Over sixty percent of PUD's
power is sold to utilities in Washin�ton and
Oregon.
Fagure 2-1
Agricalturad Cvmpl� Share of Total Employment and LaX�or Income:
Grant County, 19b9-199d
� ■ ��■�III�III��I�II�III��� ,�II����,
� %a��������� �1��„���t�����
���i�::l� � _ � �1��.::.����
,�,���� �� , ,�����
�,���M .��ii. � .�►�► , ���� � .
� � •i���11�!�:�, ,,,r�i►w�.A*;�"'� ,�1!�►:*.��`
��i������r�irrr,��,�►.�r�....�r����
������,�� „�,,,�,�,��,,,�„
��„�,,, ����,,,������
1969 1772 1975 1978 1981 t984 1987 t990 1943 19%
Note: Agriculturai complex is farmittg, faod processing, and agriouItural services
Sources: U.S. D6�}8t1tY1821E 4� G'OR]Tt7lCfC8i Bureau of Ecanamie Analysis; Washington 5tate Employment Security Department,
L�bor Market 8c Economic Analyais Branch.
Unlike elsewhere, Grant County"s export base
is orier�ted taward natural resnurces and related
value-added pracessing. The broader changes in
the national and state economies irrdicate that
service and trade sectors �iave become i�nportant
drivers of economic growth and are generating a
sizeable share of export income. Widespread
attention has been given to the shift in the
national and state econozny frorn goads
produetion• to services provision in recent years.
Grant County exhibits almost a caunter trend,
with its dependence upon goods-producing
industries of agriculture and manufacturin�. �
1 Goods-producing indus#ries consist af nahzral
resource sectors of agriculture, forestry, fishing, and
mitiing; in additlan to cansMxc4ion and
manufacturing. Services-producing sectors include
transportatian, comrnunicaiians, and utilities; finance,
insnrance, and real estate; whalesale and ret�il #rade;
services; and governnten�
Changrng Campositron of Employment
Figure 2-2 shows some of the employment
trends in the Grant Caunty economy. Over the
Iast 27 years, the sectors that have shown the
most balanced growth are services, retail trade,
and manufacturing. Farming is still the leading
ernployer (both proprietors and wage & salary
wor�Cers} in Garant County. With cantinued
agrioulturai diversificatian in the county,
farrning employrnent is projected to increase
stightiy over the next ten years.
Services---cornposed af persanal, business, auto
& miscellaneaus repair, ladging, amusement &
recreation, health, legal, social & educatian,
membership ar�anizations, and engineering &
Grant County Major Industrial 17evelopments December 1999
GM� CompXiance Assessment 8 p'�I
�
�
�
CHAPTER 2... ... ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT II�T GRANT COUNTY
accounting—are slated to become the county's
leading employer within ten years.
Manufacturing�xhibiting robust growth since
the late 1980s—is expected to continue its
steady growth pace for the next ten years. Due
to its rapid growth rate in recent years,
manufacturing has increased its share of total
employment in the county. The addition of the
recently announced relocation by Genie
Industries—a manufacturer of industrial lifting
equipment—would increase current
manufacturing employment by more than one-
fifth.
Employment
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
t,00p
Wholesale trade has grown more unevenly
during the last 27 years, with only modest
growth in the last few years. Although retail
trade has increased its presence during this
period with growth rates similar to the services
sector, the county is still underserved in most
retail trade categories. Transportation,
communications and utilities are slated to grow
apace with the overall economy, while finance,
insurance and real estate and government are
expected to moderate growing more slowly than
other sectors in the local economy.
Figure 2-2
Grant County Employment by Major Seetor, 1970-1997
1970 1973 t976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997
�� Farm —�� As. Savices �'r dha ��� Min/ng —1f-� CautnxYim
--�� Manufa�Puring �� Transfxrt �fr utilities --1— Whd�ale trade Retai! trade
Fin�nc% insur., & rml estate—O� Savices —�— Covanma�t
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chapter 6– Economic Development Element of
the Grant County Comprehensive Plan (Proulx
Cearns, Inc., September 1999) presents five
realistic economic development options for
Grant County, as listed below:
Option 1: Attract New E»xployers
Option 2: Cultivate Home grown Businesses
Option 3: Diversify the Existing Econamic
Base
Option 4: Promote Grant County as a
Destination for Tourists
Option S: Keep Shopping Dollars at Home
Where Tl:ey Are Needed
The designation of master planned locations for
major industrial development enhances the
implementation of Option l. Attracting new
basic employers for whom there is a
comparative advantage to the county will add
employment and income directly. Through the
economic multiplier effect, other jobs . and
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 9 PCI
CIIAPTER 2,.0 ... ECCl1V(JMIC DEVELOPMENT Il�T GRANT CiJU1oTTT�.'
�,����,��
i�come will also be added within the county.
Basic ernployers can include (a) manu£acturing;
(b) non-manufacturin�, such as tourist
att�rractions, computer services, and whoiesale
warehouses; ar (c) non-Iocal gov�rnment.
Action steps and policies identified in tha
Comprehensive Plan to meet this goai iz�clude:
• Identification thraugh targeted research af
basic employer(s) with greatest paientiai;
• Encaurag� value�added a�ricultural
produciion a�nd pracessing;
• Provision af adequate, serrviced and
environmentally acceptable sites that wauld
mee� the full range af industrial(business
needs and oppoz�tun.ities;
• Make the necessary infrastructure
investments in transportation, water and
sewer, telecommunications, and other
utilities as needed_ to _ leverage_ private
investnnents that create jobs; and
• Identification and organization of �nanciai
capital resources to assist in atkracting new
business (e.g., industr:ial revenue bonds,
infrastructure grant/loan).
. . . A .. ., , . . . .. ,', � �. . � � .
� �� ... �. . � .
Part V of Technical Append�x A— Economic
Prv�le of Grant County � to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan provides a defailed
description c�f the status and outloak af major
industries. Sta.tus and outlook are provided for
the following sectors:
• Agricultr�re;
• Constructian;
• Manufacturing;
• Transportation, Cpmmunication & Utxlities;
• Retail Trade;
• Wholesale 'irad�;
• 5ervices;
• Government; and
• Em�rging Tndustries.
Two af these sectors, agriculture and
manufacturing, are summarized below.
Agricuiture
Grant County, as with several counties
throughaut the state, is well endowed with
resaurces that create a strong compar�tive
advantage for a�ricultural production. Thanks to
abundant land, plentiful water for irrigatian, and
a mild climate, this county produces a
carnucopi� af food and iiber products. Grant
County is part Qf the Columbia Basin, one of the
nation's most productive and diversified
agricultural regions.
Agriculture, a rnajor component in the state's
econorny, is particularly important to Gr�t
County, its communities, and residents, At th�
1997 farm level, the value of production in
Washington was a$S.5 billion. For G�ant
County, the 1997 value of -pxoduction . was -
estimated at $802 rnillion; ranked sacond arnong
all counties in the state.
Grant Couniy is a diversified a�ricuitural
production powerhause in Washington State<
One out of every seven dotiars of the state's
a�rcicultural produotion comes from Grant
County. Agricuiturai praducers purchase
services, fertilizers, seed, �ar�rt gnachinery, and
credit within the caunty and deli�er craps and
livestock to iocal pracessars and marketers, wha
add considerable valu� to these craps before
shipping them out af the caunty. In addition to
generating incame and empioyment for Grarrt
County, direct and related agricultural econoznic
aativiiy cantr'rbutes tq the county's �canomic
eritical mass, making other uzuelated businesses
viable. For instance, without a�rricultural
shipments, the lcacal transportatian sectar (e.�.,
trucking & warehausing, rail transport) would
be much smaller. Beyond the local area,
agricultural-related traffic on the Snake-
Calumbia R.iver helps support a viable
wat�rrway trar►sport system,
Grant County Major Industriat 13evetopments December� l999
GM,4 Complianee Assessment 9 FCI
�
�
�
CHAPTER 2... ... ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN GRANT COUNTY
Outlook for Grant Countv �lgriculture. In
general, structural changes are occurring within
agricultural production regions. As agriculture
has become more productive, the demand for
needed labor has declined. Farmers are
changing their procurement patterns, making
major purchases in larger cities at the expense
of smaller comrnunities. For some of these
smaller communities, certain agricultural-
related businesses, such as farm implement,
fertilizer, and pesticide dealers, and grain
elevators, have disappeared altogether. A
number of agricultural service and supply firrns,
for example, have left smaller communities to
relocate in larger cities like Moses Lake.
Grant County, with its diversified agricultural
base, is well-positioned to adjust and respond to
these changing economic conditions. Current
depressed prices for leading agricultural
commodities have hit some local growers and
processors hard. Much of the near-term outlook
is strongly influenced by the pace of economic
recovery in Asia—a major export market fnr
Washington (and Grant County) agricultural
exports.
The specialty crops subsector—with its diverse
product mix—is likely to be a significant
growth industry well into the next century. At
the same time, the long-term outlook for the
traditional agricultural subsector . remains.
uncertain. Yet, there are : some. excep.tions;;
namely potatoes and sugar beets. Grant County
is one of the nation's leading producers of
potatoes; 25.8 million hundredweight were
harvested in 1997. Undoubtedly, potatoes will
continue to be prominent within the county's
future agricultural mix, particularly with the
number of potato value-added activities of
packers and processors. Similarly, the reiurn of
sugar beets has helped boost the local
agriculture industry with further diversification
and value-added processing. Columbia River
Sugar Company, the first sugar plant built in the
U.S. within iwo decades, is in its first year of
operation after a$250 million investment with
75 year-round and 225 seasonal employees.
In sum, the county's economy will continue to
be inextricably tied to the fortunes of the
agricultural sector. Given the dependence of
local agriculture on irrigated water, concern
about greater regional issues has surfaced,
particularly draw-downs on the Columbia-Snake
River system and possible removal of dams.
Although additional expansion of the Columbia
Basin Reclamation area has been proposed for
years, there is currently a moratorium on
additional irrigation.
Manufacturing
Food processing. Grar►t County has a critical
mass of food processors. Food processing is the
dominant manufacturing sector in Grant County.
In 1997, food processors in Grant County
employed 2,500 workers; indeed, six out of
every ten manufacturing workers in the county
were employed in food processing. It comes as
no surprise that food processing is the county's
industrial powerhouse, especially since Grant
County is one of the state's leading agricultural
production counties.
Food processing is a remarkably diverse
industry--from meat and dairy products, flour
and baked goods, to fruits and vegetables,
beverages, and seafood. Tn Grant County, the
lion's share of processing is in fruits and
vegetable.s. Although figures are unavailable, a
significant portion of Grant County's fruit and
vegetable ernployment is engaged in potato
processing. Processed potatoes take � the
principal forms of dehydrated (or flake), frozen
hash browns and french fries, potato chips and
shoestrings, and canned. According to the latest
Washington Manufacturers Registry (1998),
there are several major pota.to processing plants
in the county: Basin Frozen Foods (Warden),
which manufacturers frozen hash browns;
Lamb-Weston (Quincy), which produces frozen
potatoes; Nestle Food Service (Moses Lake),
which produces &ench fried potatoes, ftozen
hash browns, and .potato granules; JR Simplot
(Quincy), which produces frozen potato
products; National Frozen Foods (Moses Lake),
which produces frozen potato products; and
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 10 PCI
�i3APTER 2... ... ECCENOMIC DEVEL()PMEN7C IN GRANT C(JUN'T'Y
Washing�on Potato Co. (Warden), which
produces frozen potatoes.
With the processing season for potatoes
extended to nearly the full year, employment
does not fluotuate as greatly compared to other
processed commodities. Mueh of the potata
processing industry is praduction-site oriented
for the processing of frozen french frzes,
dehydrated potatoes, and canned and pre-peeleci
potataes, [Potata chip firzz�s, however, are
market-oriented and tend to be Iocated within
major urban areas,}
Other food processing facilities in Grant County
include the Calambia River Sugar Campany,
whieh produc�s sugar from sugax beets; Agrex,
Inc., and Devine Hay Cube Co. (Ephrata), which
producas hay cubes; Central F3ean Co., which
pacicages dry beans; Safeway Dairy Business
{Moses Lake), which produces znilk; Silv�rbow
honey {Mases Lake), which processes honey;
and Western Polymer Carp �IVloses Lake),
which man�factures foad, cationia and
industrial potato staroh (Washington
Manufacturers Registry, 1998).
Although flows of raw agricultural commodities
to processors are difficult to determine, a
significant share of raw comm.adity produced is
shipped out of Grant County for further
pracessing, packaging, and dist�tbution.
Potential opportunities exist far additional food
processing capacity (either new or expansion of
existing iacilities) within the county. Additional
capacity would (1) allow local fartners to further
diversify into more profitable crops, (2) increase
industrial activity, and (3) expand employment
within the caunty.
Despite the current collapse in Asian markets,
the Ionger term outlaok for the faod parocessing
industry looks bright, iretrds in domestic per
capita and total cansumptian are inareasing far a
number of commodities praduced wifi,�in the
caunty. Products with increasing per capita
cansumptian inolude sugar, apples (fresh and
frozen}, asparagus (fresh), corn (frozen),
patatoes (frozen}, grcen peas {processed},
carrats (processed). Given the county's current
product mix, such irends bode well far both
growers and processors. By late i999, ecanamic
recovery in Asia is expected to be in full swing;
ance again pxoviding apportunities for growars
and pracessors. In the neax-term, the domestic
market is expeated to remain ihe major markei
fdP tI1� COL1Ti�'s faod processing industry. 5trang
export (damestic and %reign} markets in frozen
potato products provide area processars with
significant opportunities to expand upan their
comparative advantages.
C?ther manufacturers. $esides the food
processing industry cluster, Grant County ha.s an
inereasingly diverse mix of manufaciurers
ranging from aerospace and machine parts and
capacitors to chernicals and corrugated
containers and printed materials, Altho�gh these
manufacturers laok the critical mass of the local
foad processing cluster, cornbined they ernploy
an estimated 1,"750 workers.
In �eneral, Grant Caunty is positioned wetl to
beneiit from expansion of xnanufacturing, either
from outside or frorn existing lacal
manufacturers. With some exceptions, the
county has developa.ble industrial lan,d, cheap
electric power, available labor, a first-rate
transportation netwark, and other infrasfiruetureo
A related fea�ure underlying indusirial
devetopments is the substar�tia3 ievel of foreigrt
direet investment in Grani County. 3apan
Airlines' (JAI.} use af Grant Caunty
International Airport for pilot flight training has
helped spawned additianai Japanese investment
in nnanufacturing, particu�azly within Mosss
Lake.
R�LE tJ�' ECi�NfJIYIIC
DEVELOPMENT
Eeononnic development is an essential
component of the Grant County Comprehensive
Piax�. As part of the economic develapmer�t
ptanning process, it is recommended that
performance objectives be adopted ta measurc
Grant County's overali ecor�amic healthe These
quantitative rrr�easures wauld aisa be used to
Grant County Major Industrial 1)evelopments. December 1999
GM� Compliance Assessment 11 PCI
�
�
�
CHAPTER 2... ... ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ilei GRANT COUNTY
mark the progress of the County's economic
development planning and help guide the
development of intermediate goals. Such
measures that track Grant County's economic
progress between 1997-2010 include:
Desired Levels of Job Growth
Increasing jobs is one of the most common
objectives of local economic development
programs. Grant County is no exception—
creating a"jobs-based economy" is the primary
goal of the Economic Development Council.
5ucli jotis are added to the economy through
existing businesses, new businesses, and
entrepreneurial development.
The recommended job growth performance
measure for Grant County's economy is
maintaining an annual average growth rate of
total employment of at least one percentage
point over the statewide annual average growth
rate of total employment between 1997-2010.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the historical trend of the
moving three-year average annual growth rate
of total employment for Grant County and
Washington relative to the recommended
performance measure. For most years during the
1990s, Grant County's job growth rate met or
exceeded this performance measure of one
percentage point greater than the statewide
growth rate.
Figure 2-3
Annual Change in Total Employment, Grant Counry and Washington State, 1970-1997
s.o%
6.0%
4.0%
� 2.0%
��
i 0,0%
I -2.0 °6
� -4.0�
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997
$ Grant County $ Gl�siangton S�le —�I �— Perf�rnsnce rrnasure i
Sources: U.S, Department of Commerce, Buresu of Economic Analysis, Washington State Employment Seeurity Department, [.abor Mazket
& Economic Analysis Branch.
Desired Levels of Commercial & Industrial
Expansion
One of the economic engines of Grant County is
manufacturing. Although most manufacturing is
food processing, the county has enjoyed more
diversity in recent years. Grant County's growth
in trade and services activity, however, has been
slow over the last decade relative to other rural
counties. In short, Grant County is relatively
underserved in trade and services. Figure 2-4
exhibits the shift in the state economy from
goods-production to services-production. Grant
County's economy, in contrast, remains
primarily goods-producing.
Grant County's ratio of services-producing to
goods-producing jobs has been around 1.60 (i.e.,
1.6 jobs in services-producing sectors for every
1 job in goods-producing sectors) during the
Grant Counry Major Industriad Developments December l999
GMA Compliance Assessment 12 PCI
CHAPTE�2. 2... ... ECC;NOMIC DEVEL4�PM[ENT Il�t GRAI�tT C�QUNT'Y
.�,
� 1994s. The recommended performance measure
for expansian level in goods and services jobs is
a ratio of 1.90 by 2010.
Reductian in the Level af Foverty Rate
Grant County's rate of poverty for all persons
during the last Census was 19,6 percent
4•.QO
: 3.54
3.00
2.50
2.��
1.5Q
1,0�
V.J�
�.��
cornpared with 10.9 percent statewide. The
recammended performance measure is Grant
County should reduce its rate of poverty for all
persons to at Ieast 15.0 percent by 2010. This
raie would be similar to other nearby rural
aounties.
Figure l-4
Ratio of Services-Prvducing to Goods-Prvducing .Tohs,
Grant County and Washington State,1970-1997
I t i t i � t t � 1 1 I f 1 I 1 1 I � . I 1 I I I I I
I 1 1 I I � 1 I I I I I 1 1 I i � 1 1 t i S 1 I
_ —� _ i� � e 4Ea e � i— � �. _ �... _ y � ��_ _ .- .�� _ ... � � —1 — F. _ .y � ��.� �. � � e� _ �. F n -1 �. � �� � { r � - - -� - -
� y I I � I I I I i I I i � u . I i i {' � � I i
! i f i S 1 1 ' 1 I 1 1 I � i i I I
_ _1— �_I.._1—.� ..'�' __�__.F"i_ '_"_—..__.'__.—_"'�_—•-—�_._-._—��_«--—•--L...1_,_..
i_ '' ._ i I 1 . � ' I . . 1 I �
i , � . � � , . - �
' --�------=-------------------'--=--
' ------ ----- -------
----� ----�--� - -- � , �
� � � � �, i., ., �
i , r i � � i � � i , � i s � i � s � � , i
i - --.- - i r ^ -� - z '-i� - .Z- -i - r - :.1� r - �" -r - z - -a- - r - a-
�"T'� �C'`"��'T.`�^ � '�"�'�'�1K �'��"'�."+�"'�["�a=�c�^�r'a�—:_'.'-_ _�.
i � i � s � . � E . � . . � � �
I � I I I I ' F
, _ _ _____ ,.__�__ _.�__� 7__�_ . � .__ ' _�' T__,__r'.�_
� � � � � � , � � � � � � � � � � � � �,� ��
l i I I 1 t { 1 1 1 1 1 k 1 I f I i I . I 1 I I I I I
� y _ _ _ t .. _I.. — 1.. _ " _ _ Y' _ ..� ' ..I_ .. y. _ _I ^ _ r _ y � ' r ' Y _ i_ ' t _ _i _ _ ' y ' _ {... _ y. _ '�_ ._. , � .y _ ' r. _ .q e _
t y t t� i t ' 1 1 1 a 1 I ! I I � I I 1 � I I I I 1 I I I
I I 1 I I I I I i I I � I i 1 � I I i � 7 I � s f E I
_ —t — .. 4— — 1 » �{... _ }- _ —1 ' _ h _ .{ _ ' I_ .- .F _ _I _ _ 1— s ..1 e _ I.- — -4 — ...1— ,.» 1— .. _I ... _ {— ... —I .` � I.» _ k — •_I -- ... � ' ^ _ _ F. _ -1 � _
I 1 I I I I I i i i i i i I I { l i t i 1 t t S 1 1
t i I l { 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I
1990 19T3 1976 1979 1982 2985 1988 1991 1994 1997
-�-Grant C:ona�ty �- WasttinglonState -��Ir P�e measiu�e �
Saurce; U,S. Departmant qf Commerce, Bureau af Econamic Anaiysis.
Figu�°e �-5
Grant County's Ilnemployment ltate as a 1'e�cent of Washington State's Rate, 1970-1997
�sn.oqo
�%%Q.i� r�
1GO.Q9'o
150.4`G
x�a.a�
130.0%
� i � i I i f t i I I I t I i � 4 { � i i 1 1 1 1 1 �
_ .� _ ..1 _ " 1- •• + - -I .» m i-. _ + - -1 .. � I.. _ J- _ -1 � .. �� .� !- � .{ e .-I- - {- ... -1 .� _I... _ 1- _ -4 - -I .� _ I- - .4 - -1 - _ F- � + ... � � �
I t 1 1 I i i i t k t i i t I I t i 4 � { . 1 I 1 I
--'--�---� -�- �--��-�--�--Ir_�_J_..�__L_�__I__�.�1_ �__L 1d---- -�--�--�-_1_ � -
r I � � � � t t � i t � � t I � � i � � � � � �
I I I I I I � I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I i ' I
i _
-�--,--�-T--�~-r-r--,--s-- --,--r--�~-a--r-�-- r----��--r-T ___ __�_
i i i i i , i a i � i � i i i i i � i i + � i i � i
,
--+--+--t--+--�--�-.-�--�--� -+--�- --*--+--�--� --�--�--+--�--r-�--+--r-+^'-�--
� � � � � � � � � � � � � .� � � �,�����
_1__t__L_1_J_..�__1_J_ __1_.„t__� !_ v_ ,_L-1--i_-L-1--.�--�-1-^�_-�_-1_J�. _
—�i:—t—;—;— —�—; �—�—{—;—� ;_�— _� , , _ . �
120.0% - i --i--� -7--i--i - i --i -� - � - r--�-- i - i--�--� - �--�--� - �--�--� - � __i__� i _�_
i i�� i i i i i i i i i i i i i i � i i i i i i
110.O�Yo "'t"_I-�_h•_ _r_*_ __�__9._.y__i--_Y_y__�__r^--i__i..._�,_-t__+__t-_�_-t__r..��-�__
� � � � � � � 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
lO�.00� _ ,,,-1 eL�1.vJ.._L. 1_...i_„'__S_J__I_..L..�.._I__L_1__I�_Is_1_..!_..�_1_._i__L.e1_J..._
� 1 I 1, I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 � � � �
90.0% i t i � 1 4 _ I_ t_«1_ � 1_ 7_—.�_ .. I, 1 _t_ _ i _�_ i � i i i � � i � i
___--__ _-_»--------------------
1 4 1� IY I I I � � I I I I � I I I I I I 1 I I I � � �
i I I i t . i I � t i y i � i S 1 1 1 { i 1 1 1 I 1 1
8�,0�
1470 1473 197b Y999 14$2 1985 1988 1491
�-i-�Perfosronance meaeure
Note: Based on a three-ycar moving average �
Source: Washington State Emplayment Security Department, Labor Mazkat & Econornic Aaalysis Branch.
1994 1997
Grant Coundy Majar Industrial Developments 1}ecember 1999
GMA Compliance .4ssessment 13 F'�r
�
C�
CHAPTER 2... ... ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN GRANT COUNTY
Reduction in tlae Overall Unemployment
Rate
Grant County is designated as an economically
distressed county, based on its unemployment
rate being at least 20 percent above the
statewide average (Figure 2-5). Recommended
performance measure for Grant County is a
reduction in its unemployment rate from an
average 57 percent above the statewide
unemployment rate during the 1990s to 25
percent above the statewide average by 2010.
Growth in Per Capita Income
In 1996, per capita income in Grant County was
� 18,366; more than $6,900 below the statewide
average. The county's per capita income is
roughly 75 percent of the statewide average.
Relative to the state, Grant Couniy's per capita
income performance has deteriorated since the
mid 1970s (Figure 2-6). The recommended
performance measure for Grant County is an
improvement in its per capita income to at least
90 percent of the statewide average by 2010.
These performance measures should be
maintained and reviewed on a semi-annual
basis. Such a review would include the status of
the economy, recent trends, factors influencing
those trends, and the effect of governmental
policy on the economy. The performance
measures should rank Grant County within rural
Washington, and compare the county
performance with that of the state and nation.
Figure 2-6
Grant County's Per Capata Income �s a Percent of tl:e Washington State Average, 1970-1996
120.0%
110.0%
100.Oqo
90.0%
80.0%
70.0�
60A� � � �
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 19% I
I
�—A—GzactCou�rty tPeifom�amemeaau+ei i
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
ECONOMIC FORECAST
'Three forecast scenarios are presented in Part
VII of Technical Appendix A— Economic
Profile of Grant County: a baseline forecast, a
low growth scenario and a high growth scenario.
The baseline forecast assumes that employment
growth in Grant County will slow from the 4.1
percent experienced between 1990 and 1997 to
3.2 percent in 2002 and 3.0 percent in 2007.
The high growth farecast is based on the
enhanced role that economic development is
expected to play in the future of Grant County,
as described above. Performance measures that
the economic goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan are intended to invoke
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 14 PCI
LL� CHAPTER 2... ... ECONOMI� DEVELOPMENT IN GRAN�' COUNTY
include:
• Maintain an annual average growth rate of
total emplayment af at least one percentage
�oir�t over the statewide average;
• Achieve a ratio of serviees-producing to
goods-produaing jobs of 1.90 by 201Q;
• Reduce the rate of poverty in the County
from 19.6 percent to 15 A percent by 2010;
• Reduce the unernployment rate in the
County from 57 percent above the statewide
rate ta 25 percent abave the stat�wide rate
by 20I0; and
• Inerease per capita income in the Caunty to
at least 90 percent of the statewide average
by 2010.
With aggressive m.arketing of county economic
initiatives and availability of suitable lands for
industrial development, the Counfy intends to
achieve these performance measures. To
enhance its competitive position to atCract new
manufacturing firms, the County intends to
designate master planned locatzons for major
industrial developrnent and formulate pianned
investnnents in infrastructure to serve them. In
doing so, Grant County expects to achieve the
ecanomic forecast for industriai etnployment as
presented in Table 2-l.
Based on the high-growth forecast, Grant
Caunty expects to increase industrial
empioyment fram 7,122 jabs in 1998 to 14,575
jabs in 2018, an inarease of 7,453 jobs.
Targeting higher wage, industrial jabs will
positively effect per capita income in Grant
Caunty over the next 20 yea,rs.
Table 2-1 '
Industrial Employment Forecttst: 1998-2018
Sector Actual F�recast
1990 1997 I998 ZU07 2018 2007 201�
Total �mployment 27,707 35,677 36,252' 47,878 6U,860� 49,824 6�,334
% of Papuiation 50.b°lo 52,2°l0 52.2°10 57.2°l0 $7.2°l0 59.5°l0 59.5°to
Industriai.
Manufacturiug 2,889 �,237 5,128 6,377 6,724
Tru�king &c 6443 880" 9045-.:
Warehouse �
Whalesale Trade 1,292 1,462 1,394 1,718 1,758
Totalltidustrial 7,122 8,975 I3,2356 9,386 14,575'
% of Total 19.7°l0 1$.$°l0 21.$°l0 18.8% 23.0%
Employrr►ent
Papulatian 54,798 6$,300 b9,400t4 83,674 Ip6,362" 83,6i4 146,362"
Based an same percentage of Wtai empiayment to papuiadon as that of 1447.
Z Peojeated based on sama peceantage of total empioymcat W tobl Qopuladan as that af 2007.
3 Washington State Employment Security De�artmenG
4 Pmjceted bascd on "basoline seenxrio" annuai gmwth rate far TGPUl2.
5 Projxfed based on "`high growth seenario" annual growth rau far TCPU � 2.
b ProjaCted based on "baseiine sceaario" annuai grawth rata (3.6•/. as for 1447 — 2001.
7 Fmjceted based an "high gmwtis scenario" annua! geowth rate (4.1 % as fo� ! 997 — 2007.
8 See Tabla 18, Part VII nf Teahniaal Appendi�c A— Economic Ptofilo of Cirant Counry.
`� See Table 20, Part VII af TaCIuricat Appcndi�c A— Economic ProHio af Grant Causrty.
10 Washington Slate OFM.
t t p��tion projecdoa from Tabte 3-11, G[ant Caimty Comprehensive Pian.
i�'Ftsnsportation, eommrsaieadons andpubiie utiiities, whieh saelud�t the lrucking and warshouse sub-secWr.
Grant Count,� Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 13 P`�1
�
�
�
CHAPTER 3
INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
OVERVIEW
This chapter documents the methodology used
to forecast industrial land demand driven by the
employment forecast presented in Chapter 2.
This chapter also summarizes the industrial land
use inventory prepared for the Comprehensive
Plan economic analysis.
INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND
FORECAST
Based on the employment forecast presented in
Chapter 2, Grant County expects to increase
industrial employment from 7,122 jobs in 1998
to 14,575 jobs in 2018, an increase of 7,453
jobs. Land needed to accommodate 7,453 new
industrial jobs is dependent on employment
density, land supply and market factors.
Employment Density
Employment density factors for industrial land
demand projections are highly variable
depen.ding on the type of industry and
geographic areas. Significant differences can be
found between connpanies in the same industry,
as well as in the same geographic area. Factors
that influence employment density include
setback and buffer needs, storage and
distribution requirements, cost and availability
of land, land banking for future expansion,
urban or rural setrings, and even personal
preference.
Table 3-1 lists employment densities used in
comprehensive planning by other counties in
Washington. Employment densities range frorn
a low of 1.1 jobs per acre in rural areas of
Whatcom County to 30 jobs per acre at a highly
urbanized setting such as Boeing's facilities in
Snohomish County.
Typical worker population for industrial sites as
published in reference texts varies from 5 to 15
persons per acre. Typical employment density is
about seven jobs per acre. Based on a land needs
analysis prepared for Lewis County (Hovee,
1997) a value of 4.5 persons per acre was used
as a basis for industrial land needs.
Based on an analysis of thirteen industrial
operations in Grant County (See Table 3-2), a
total of 576 acres were used to employ 3,430
employees, an average of 6.0 employees per
acre. �
Table 3-1
Employment Densities in
Washington Counties
Employment
Density
County (Jobs/Acre)
Clark 9.0
Lewis 4.5
Pierce 7.0
Kitsap 7.4
Snohomish 15-30
Skagit 6.5
Whatcorn 1.1-5.1
Source: Lewis County Industrial Land
Needs Analysis, E.D, Hovee & Company, 1997
Land Supply Reduction Factor
Land development occurs in a dynamic and
often complex market-driven environment that
is not fully understood and difficult to predict,
Factors that influence development include local
and regional land supply and demand, economic
and employment factors, regulatory factors, and
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 16 PCI
CH.�.PTER 3... ... INDUSTRIAL LAND T}EMAND/CAPA�ITY A1�IALYSIS
�
societal issues. To account for such factars,
"reductian" or "discaunt" factors are appiied to
the land base to more accurately estirnate
developable land.
Table 3-2
Ind'ustwial Employment Density Arealysi�
Gross
Area Na. of Employees
Site Company �������n Product (Acresj' Employees'' Per Acre
1 CaruationlNestle Wheeler East Potatoes 34.42 450 13.1
2 ASMI Wheeler East Polysilicon & 1.46 400 4.9
3 Ba31ll. Pi4ZSri FOOC�S Warden Patataes 7.32 180 24.6
4 Warden Produee Warden Potataes 12.$9 6S S,d
5 Pacific NW Sugar Wixeeler Sugar t79.41 100 O.b
6 Washington Potato Warden Potatoes 3.$b 150 20.5
7 Skone & Conners Wardeia Potataes i0.29 100 13.7
8 Coiumhia Foads Quincy Vegetables 37.37 250 6.7
9 3R Simplot Quincy Patatoes 53,17 540 11.3
14 Lamb Westin Quincy Potataes 18.7 450 24.1
11 Inflation Systems, Inc. Airport 1,00 490 4.9
12 Willamette Industries tiVheeler Connigated 19.7 100 5.1
13 EKA Chernicals Wheeler Sodium chlorate 17,83 45 2,5
Todals 576.42 3,d30 6.0 �
Industrial Land Use Database and GTS Mapping, 1998 Econornic Prafite of Graptt County, Chase Economics &
Reed Hansen & Assoc�ates
� Source: Washingtan Manufacturers Registry, l998
Reductions are typic�lly made for criti�al areas,
roafls, public facilities, and land estimated to be
ur�available far development during th�
planning period. it is nearly impossible to
accurately predict how the developm.ent market
will act ovar a 2Q-year period. Reduction factors
are intended to help ensure that an adequat�
supply of developable land is available to
achieve the County's economic and land use
objectives.
Following are descriptions of th� reduction
faotors to be used for the Grant County
Industrial Land Demand Analysas. The proposed
reduction factors, as tabulated in T`able 3-3, tatal
SS% of the Iand.
Unavailable Land: Unavailable Iand is that land
estimated to not be av�ilable for sale or
d�veloprner�t within the 24•year planning
pe�zQd. This reduction accounts for property
owners who have no interest in selling or
developir►g th�ir land. The CTED report entitled
"Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas
(Part I): Providing Adequat� Urban Area Land
Supply" (1�Iarch 1992) recommends using 1 S%
for v�cantland.
Unsuitable Land: Unsuitable land is land that
may not be suitable for development due ta
ecor�omic ar market forces, locational
suitability, or other local policy reasons. Cextain
market fa�tars may make it unlikeiy ihat
developers wi.Tl choose to invest and deveiop
given properties within the 20-y�ar p�anning
period. The amount of unsuitable land is very
difiicult, if not impossible, ta estimate since it is
driven iargely by ever changing market faetors.
Grant �'ounty Ma, jvr Industritt! Develapments .Qecember 1999
GMA Campliance Assessment ! 7 PCI
�
CHAPTER 3... ... INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A reduction factor of 5% will be used for Grant
Countv industrial land.
Roads and Public Facilities: This reduction
factor accounts for land used for road rights-of-
way, private accass roads, parking areas and
public facilities within an industrial lands.
Public facilities include, but are not limited to,
irrigation canals and wasteways, utility
corridors, sewage treatment facilities, and open
space. The amount of land needed depends upon
the type and density of industrial development.
Estimates range from 5% to 50% of total land.
A reduction factor of 20% will be used.
Critical/Physically Limited Areas: Designated
critical areas and any required buffers are
constrained for development pursuant to Grant
County's critical areas ordinance. Criticai areas
include wetlands, habitat conservation areas,
geological hazard areas, frequently flooded
areas, and aquifer recharge areas. A reduction
factor is applied to account for development
density lost due to presence of critical areas.
Critical area constraints can be estimated using
either a flat percentage basis or using mapped
data to calculate amounts of critical areas
present in the UGAs. Using a flat percentage
does not look at individual parcel impacts, but
instead assumes an overall average impact on
tand development. A reduction factor of 15%
wi(1 be used to account for critical areas.
lilarket Safery Factor
Even though models are deve(oped for
estimating available land supply, there will
always be a cartain degree of uncertainty in
making long-range growth projections and
predicting market conditions relative to
industrial land supply and demand. Therefore,
land capacity analyses often include a"market
safety factor". This is an additional amount of
land, usually expressed as a percentage that is
added to account for the dynamic operation of
land markets. It can also be viewed as adding a
margin of safety so that the supply of' land is not
constrained to a point where land costs are
"artificially" inflated. �
A market safety factor of 25% will be used for
this analysis.
Land Demand
Based on the employment forecast of 7,453 new
industrial jobs, industrial land demand is
calculated to be 3,450 acres, calculated as
follows:
Industrial New (I — Market
Land �(ndustrial , Employment _ Reduction X Safety
Demand Jobs Density Factor) Factoe
= 7,453 jobs = 6.0 jobs/acre =(1 — 0.55) x 1.25
Table 3-3 = 7,453 jobs = 6.0 jobs/acre =(1— 0.55) x 1.25
Summary of Industrial Land
Reduetion Factors = 3,450 acres
Development Reduction Factor
Constraint (%) Over the next twenty years, Grant County is
Unavailable Land 15 predicted to need a total industrial land demand
Unsuitable Land 5 of 3,450 gross acres.
Roads/Public Facilities 20
Criticai AreasBuffers 15
Total SS
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments ' December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 18 PCI
�� CHAP'TER 3.... .., INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND/CAPA�ITY ANALYSIS
INDUSTRIAL LANN�► USE
Il`1VENTORY
In 1�98, Grant County conductad a
comprehensive land use inv�ntory (See
Techni�al Grant County Comprehensive Plan,
Part IV — Technical Appendices, Appendix A).
The inventory was based on the Grant County
Zoning Map and the Assessar's parcel database.
T'he inventory is organized geographically into
northern, central and southern locations.
Industrial parcets are ma�ped on 23 charts. The
inventory database, included hexein in Appendix
A, identifies the parcel number, unimproved and
improved acreage, the value af irnprovem.ents,
and ownership. A. narrative accampaz�ies the
inventory and describes use and growth
patterns, infrastructure availability, regulatary
and other constraints, and needs far land at�d
infrastruciure investment.
Based an the industrial land use inventory, this
study identifies the number and acreage of
"large" p�rceis suitable for industrial
development. Many of the parcels inventoried
are smail (less than 14 acres) and are not
deemed suitable for rnajor industrial
developrnent intendad laz�d�r the designation of a
mast�r planned location for major industrial
development.
For exampleF Genie Industries recently
evaluated an opporiunity to develop a new
manufacturing facility south of Moses Lake.
The site that they selected was 1,000 acres, of
which it was intended to use about 480 acres
using the rernainder as buffero The propased
facility would have emptayed about 1,400
industrial workex°s. Larger sit�s and parcels are
clearly favored over smaller ones.
Therefor, only larger parcels should be
considered for design.atian as rnajor indusiria�
reviewed to identify only larger parcels,
separately i�.ventorying parcels greater than 40
acres, greater than 84 acres, and greater than
12Q acres. Those parcels ax� identiiied in Table
3-4 for each of the 23 inventory charts.
Table 3-4 daes not include those industrial lands
located within corporate lirnits of Grant
Caunty's 1S incorporated cities and towns. bnly
Quincy (153 acres), Ephrata (945 acres} and
Moses Lake (36S acres) have any significant
amount of industrial lands within their corporate
limits. Of the 945 acres of vacant industriai Iand
in Ephrata, 890 acres were annexed in I997.
Due to the small size of parcels, the loaations,
the proximity to inconnpatible land uses, and
other canstraints, parcels within the cities are
cansidered unsuitabt� for master planned
Iocations for majar industriai develapment.
Each of these cities also �as significantly more
industrial lands lacated withir� their urban
growth areas, bu� autside af their carparate
timits, whieh lands are inciuded in Table 3-4.
As shown in Tabie 3-4, the amount of vaaant
industriai land ranges from 2,387 acres {when
cansideriz�g only thase parcels greater than i24
acres} to 2,934 acres {when considerin� all
parcels greater tha.n �4 acres}. Bath figures
inciude 1,039 acres that have been included in
Site B— Ephrata Airport North, which is one of
four sites considered for designation as a rnaster
planned locatia� fox major industrial
development.
Ine�uded in the industrial lands defined in Table
3-4 are 525 acres at the Grant County Aizport
defined as "aviation related indust:rial" lands.
These lands ar� described in the Grant County
Airport Master Plan (TR,A, 1994) as including
fabrication, assembly, and activities tha�
fundamentally rely on aviation for the
movement of products or people. Such activities
developznent. The land use mventory was must be compatible with aviation; activities that
Grant County Majar Industrial Developments Decemher 1999
GMA Compdiance.4ssessment 19 PCI
�
�
�
� CHAPTER 3... ... INDUSTRIAL LAIVD DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
emit smoke or electromagnetic interference are
not acceptable. Examples of aviation related
industrial activities include:
• Aircraft parts/instrument manufacture or
assembly;
• Aircraft manufacture;
• Aircraft painting and renovation;
• Air cargo and air freight services;
• Warehousing of products for any of the
above activities; and
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Total
Inventory Cliart Area
Location
• Foreign trade zones.
Because such industrial lands are essentially
unavailable for non-aviation major industrial
development, they should be discounted. Using
the mid-range figure of 2,694 acres of available
industrial land from Table 3-4 and subtracting
the aviation related industrial land at Grant
County Airport yields a net available industrial
land of 2,169 acres, which will be used for this
analysis.
Table 3-4
Industrial Land Inventory'
I Parcels > 40 Ac. I Parcels > 80 Ac.
Beverlys
Mattawa
Mattawa
Wahluke
Royal City
East of Royal City
Warden
South of Warden
George
SE of Moses Lake
Ballards Cafe
South of Wheeler Corridor
Wheeler Comdor
East of Wheeler Corridor
Wheeler Corridor W. of Road N
Port of Moses Lake/GC AirportZ
Aviation Related Industrial
Aviation Comparible Industrial
Quincy
Winchester
East of Winchester
South of Ephrata
Ephrata Airport North'
Coulee City
No.
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
Area
0.00
48.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
189.32
117.40
50.58
0.00
46.40
0.00
148.37
44.58
0.00
0.00
525.00
185.00
345.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,183.78
50.23
2,934.05
N.o.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
Area
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
189.32
117.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
525.00
185.00
345.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,183.78
0.00
2,693.87
Parcels > 120
Ac.
No. Area
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 •
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
525.00
185.00
345.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
1,183.78
0.00
2,387.15
Z Grant County Airport Master Plan, TRA Consulting/CH2M Hill, 1994. Number of parcels wdrnown.
3 Includes 1,038.51 acres located within.Site B- Ephrafa Aitport No�th MID.
4 Excludes 417 acros owned by Grant County P'UD.
5 Excludcs 368 acres awned by USA.
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 20 PCI
C�IAPTER 3..e .,. INDUSTRIAL LAIVD TfElYIANDl�APACITY �.NAL.YSIS
1� ♦� '� a �i ♦� '� ♦�
Based on a-forecasted demand of 3,45Q acres of
industriaX Iand over the next twenty years and a
estimated supply of 2,169 acres, there exists a
deficit of about 1,281 acres of industriai Iand,
Grani County prepared a Site Selectian Report
th.at evaluated seven sites considered suitabl�
fox master pta�nned Iocations for major i�dustrial
development. The top ranked sites were
cansidereci by the Board of County
Commissianers for designatian. Environmentai
analysis has been conducted far the tap four
sites:
1. Site A— Wheeler East (2,Q4Q acres);
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North (1,56Q
acres);
3. Site C— Beverly Burke (520 acres); and
4. Site D— Martin (580 acres).
Mapping of th� sites is included in Appendix B.
Site B— Eghrata Airpert North includes 1,039
acres that have been included in the estimated
supply of 2,169 acres, which �ields a net
increased industrial land capacity of only 521
acres for Site B.
T'he four sites wer� selected after application of
several criteria develaped by a selectian
cornmittee (Se� 5ite Selection Report). Criteria
included:
• Access;
� water and sewer availability;
a proximity and arnouuit of sensitive Iands;
� parcel size;
• adjaaent land uses;
• zoning;
• rail access;
• auport acoess;
• natttral gas availability; and
• eiectrzcal power availabilityJcapacity.
Nat mare than twa sites may be designated. The
twa laxgest sites, Site A— Wheeler East and Site
B— Ephrata AirparC North, yield a net 2,561
acres, whxch �xceeds the industrial land deficit
of 1,ZSi acres. Any cambination.of two of Sites
B, C and D result in iess industrial land than
forecast to be need�d over the next 2Q years.
Although designation of Sites A and B would
result in more land than forecast to be needed
far twenty years, it is justified based on:
1. logical parcel boundaries that_do not divide
parcels;
2. accornmodating rail access;
3. accornmodating state high�way a�cess;
4. providing adequate buffer areas;
5. protecting future expansian eapabilities; and
6, providing suff cient areas for industrial
wastewater treatment, if required.
In addition, the designatian of sufficieni
industrial tand in the farm of a Iand bank helps
ensure that ths indusi��ial la�ad market includes
adequately—sized parcels in apprapriate
locations. Designation of both sites may provide
suffzcient land ta accomrnodate maz'e t�an 20�
years emptoyrnent growth, thus ensuring higher
wage ,jabs far Grant Courzty residents.
As stated in Chaptez� l, designating a sufficient
sug�ly of l�nd far industrzal uses is important to
G"rrant County because af the irnpact of
industrial use on the standard of living and
quality of life. Without adequate industrial iand,
Grant County and its citizens would lose high
wages and a healthy tax base necessary for a
thriving cornmunity.
Grant County Ma, jor Indus#rial l�evelopm�nts December 1999
GM�1 Compliance Assessment 21 P�j
�
�
�
CHAPTER 3... ... INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Grant County was granted by the Washington
State Legislature a unique window of
opportunity during which to increase their long-
term supply of industrial land through the
designation of two master planned locations for
major industrial development. Large tracts of
potential industrial property have already been
lost due to increased pressures from rural
residential growth, increased stringency in
environmental regulations, and other
constraints. 'The future economic vitality of the
County, its communities and its citizens is
dependent upon the designation of sufficient
industrial land now before the remaining prime
sites are lost.
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 22 PCI
i , � ' ' �
,,
'� ' ' � i' , .
� � ,
Grant County has a projected deficit of
industriai lands, as presented in Chapter 3. Tr�vo
sites have been identified as the preferred sites
for designatian as master planned locations for
majar industrial develapm�nt:
� Site A— Wheeler East and
• 5ite B-- Ephrata Airport Narth.
Twa other sites are also being considered for
designation: Site C— Beverly Burke and Site D
-� Martin. Mapping for all four sites is pravided
in Appendix B. Grant County Long Range
Planning staff recomrnend that these two sites
be d�signated as mastex planned looations for
major industrial development and inctuded in
the urban indusirial Iand bank for the County.
Tliis chapter addresses issues related to eventuat
development of alt four sites for industrial
devalopment. The chapter evaluates water
supply, wastewater, transportation and pubiic
services issues to a• Ievel suf�cient to camplete
SEPA environmentai review and ta evaivate the
impacts to capital faciliti�s. Chapter 5 includes a
fznancial plan far development, inciuding an
estimate of casts and a discussion regarding
patentiai funding saurces.
WATER SUPPLY
tieneral Development Issues
Water supply may b� required for drinking,
Potable water demands far industrial sztes are
typically a small �ercentage af process water
and fire suppression needs. Water demands for
industr�ial sites are highly variables d�pending
upon �he �ype of industrial use. Light industrial
applications such as warehouse distributian
centers primarily need anly potable water for
sanitary needs. Agriculturai processing plants
ty�ically require mare than S,OOQ' gatlons per
day anfl rnay require millians of gaZlons per day.
Fire suppression quantities are typicaliy
supplemental ta the patabie and prooess needs
sirtce it is usually kept in reserve and pro�vided
by pumping or elevated storage. Stoxage
requirements can range from a few hundred
thousand ta over one millzon gallons.
Sources of water inciude munioipal water
supply systems, surface water withdrawal, or
grauzidwater withdrawal. Municipal water
supply syst�ms exist in the general vicinity of
each of the four patential sites. Municipal water
suppiy may ar may not be made availabte by
jurisdictional providers.
The Washington State Departrnent af Ecotogy
regulates the quantity of water fnr all uses.
Water rights permits are required prior to any
benef cial water use greater than 5,000 gallons
per day. Use of groundwater up to 5,000 galions
per day far domestic or industrzal use is
exempted from the Water R.ight Permit process
under RCW 90.44.OS0.
Existing Cvnditivns
industrial (process), and fire suppression
purposes. Saurca of water may be rnwnicipal �`jz� A— Wheeler East
water supply systezns, surface water withdrawal, T�� ���'est source of municipal water supply is
or ground`vater withdrawal. fram the City af Moses Laka, wha supplies
Grant County Mrr,jor Industriud L?evelopments December 1999
GMA Complittnce �lssessment 23 p�j
�
�
�
CHAPTEI� 4... ...INFRASTRUCTUI2E DEVELOPMENT PLAN
water to other industries located in the Wheeler
Corridor to the west of Site A. City officials
have indicated that they do not intend to serve
water or sewer to Site A at this time. Thus,
water will likely need to be supplied by the
County or industrial developers.
Availability of groundwater in the vicinity of
the sites has not been determined, but it is
expected that groundwater is available at the site
to serve domestic uses up to 5,000 gallons per
day. Water system development for industrial..
applications with demand below 5,000 gallons
per day may use groundwater if quantity and
auality is adequate. Larger demands may use
surface water withdrawals, if available, or may
seek new water rights or transfer of an existing
water right.
Groundwater availability within the Quincy
Basin is extremely lirnited. The eastern border
of the Quincy Basin is the East Low Canal,
which divides Site A. The availability of
groundwater from the Odessa Subarea east of
the East Low Canal is more readily available. It
is feasible that groundwater from the easterly
basin could be obtained and pumped to serve
Site A,
Site B— Ephrata Airport North
The nearest source of municipal water supply is
from the City of Ephrata, to the southwest of
Site B. The City may not have adequate
capacity intend to serve water to Site B at this
time. Thus, water will likely need to be supplied
by the County or industrial developers.
Availability of groundwater in the vicinity of
the sites has not been determined, but it is
expected that groundwater is available at the site
to serve domestic uses up to 5,000 gallons per
day. Water system development for industrial
applications with demand below 5,000 gallons
per day may use groundwater if quantity and
quality is adequate. Larger dernands may use
surface water withdrawals, if available, or may
seek new water rights or transfer of an existing
water right.
One potential source of water for Site B—
Ephrata Airport Narth may be via the Bureau of
Reclamation Columbia Basin Project. The
Bureau annually withdraws about 10 million
gallons of groundwater per day to help prevent
intrusion of Project groundwater into the natural
waters of Soap Lake. Withdrawn water is
pumped into the West Low Canal. During
irrigation periods, , the �vithdrawn water
supplements Project water. When irrigation is
not taking place, the water must still be
discharged to the West Low Canal, making
canal maintenance normally performed in dry
conditions more difficult and costly. Generally,
the Bureau would prefer alternate use of the
withdrawn water. The Bureau may authorize
utilization of some of the withdrawn wat�r for
industrial applications. If made available, this
pumped water could feasibly be diverted to an
existing surface water body or other storage for
industrial use.
Site C — Beverlv Burke
The nearest source of municipal water supply is
from the City of George, to the southeast of Site
C. However, City offiCials may not serve water
or sewer to Site C at this time. Thus, water will
likely need to be supplied by the County or
industrial developers.
Availability of groundwater in the vicinity of
the sites has not been determined, but it is
expected that groundwater is available at the site
to serve domestic uses up to 5,000 gallons per
day. Water system development for industrial
applications with demand below 5,000 gallons
per day may use groundwater if quantity and
quality is adequate. Larger demands may use
surface water withdrawals, if available, or may
� Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 24 PCI
� CHAPT�R 4,.. ...INFI2ASTRU+CTUR.E DEVEL4PMENT FLAI"Y
seek new water righfis or trazxsfer of an existing
water right.
Sile D -- Martin
The nearest source of municipal water suppiy is
from the City of Quincy, to tk�e west of Site D.
City of�ciais have indicated t�at they do not
intend ta serve water ar sewer ta Site D at this
time. Thus, water will likely need to be supplied
by the County ar industrial developers.
Availability of grour�dwater iz� the vicinity of
the sites has not been determined, but it is
expected that groundwater is available at the sit�
ta serve domestic uses up to 5,000 gallons per
day. Water system development for industrial
applications with demand below 5,000 galions
per day may use groundwater if quantity and
quality is adequate. Larger demands may use
surface water withdrawats, if available, ar may
seek new water ri�hts or transfer of an existing
water right.
Needs Assessment
In order ta assess needs and select th� most
cost-effective means af obtaining water, a
feasibility study will r�eed ta bs cone3ucted prior
ta development of the site for industrial
occupancy. The feasibility study will evaluate
water supply issues specific to the site being
developed and for ths type of indusfiry to b�
developed. The feasibility study coutd be
conducted in advance of development by the
County, or it could be conducted by the
developer. In either approach, cornmuniaation
with the Washington State Departrnent of
Ecology and the T3epartrnent o�' Health will be
necessary to determine design criteria for
development. �uch a feasibility study and
assoaiated planning and permitting process may
requir� a year or more.
Potential Casts
Casts of water suppiy wiil range widely
depending on the source and quantzty required.
Water suppiy needs of less than 5,400 gallons
per day that can be met with on-site domestia
wells will be least costly. Purchase and transfer
of water rights may be the most costly, wiih
costs depending upon availability. The City of
Moses Lake reportedly puxchased a water right
af 3,40Q acre-feet frorn a source in the Odessa
Subarea at a cost of $1,300,000.
General Uevelopment Issues
Industrial activities typioally require discharge
of wastes, bath solid and liquid. Wastewater
discharge can vary widely depending upon the
type of industry. The anticipated flows are
difficuit to predict, and treatment and disposal
me�hods beaome rnore carnplex as the flaw
increases. Wastewater flow ftom warehouse
type facilities that ocaupy a lot of land, but have
relatively few employees can be small. But for
"wet°' industries such as food procass�ng, the
flows can be quite large.
Disoharge of wastewater may be ta municipal
sewer systems, to on-site treatrrient systerns, ar
through spray applicatian of treated wastewater.
Industrial pracesses may also reuse wastewater,
Surface Discha�e
Discharge of wastewater to surface waters
proposed by future development related to this
action would be treated effluent meeting
secondary disoharge standards simiiar to
mu�icipal treatment systems, as reguiated by the
Departrnent of Ecology. A dedicated treatment
plant eould be constructed to serve the industriai
activities. There axa several types of industrial
treatment plants that can produce high quality
eifluent, inciuding "s�quencireg batah reactors"
Grant Counry Ma, jor Industrial Developments 1?ecember 1999
CM.4 Cam�liance Assessment 2S p�'j
\#
�
CHAPTER 4... ...INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
or SBR. The SBR process uses a single basin to
perform all of the treatrnent processes, aeration,
mixing and solids settling. These types of plants
are well suited to phased constructian. Thus, as
more industry locates at a site, additional
treaiment units can be installed to handle
additional flow, thereby avoiding large initial
capitalization.
Any wastewater discharge will be evaluated in
accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant
County Shoreline Management Program,
Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance,
and other pertinent development regulations.
Onsite DischarQe
Discharge of wastewater may occur through on-
site septic systems for "dry" industrial
applications having primarily er�ployee sanitary
needs. Maximum daily flows for a single system
is limited to 15,000 gallons per day. Due to flow
limitations, on-site systems may not be suitable
for higher demand, "wet" industries. Water
discharged to recharge groundwater must meet
drinking water quality standards. This could be
accomplished through advanced treatment
systems, such as sand �lter/mound systems.
Such systems are much more axpensive than
typical gravity drainfields.
Wastewater Reuse
Some industries, especially those that have a
large process water demand, are well suited to
wastewater reuse. Reclaimed water can be used
for spray irrigation, groundwater recharge, fire
sprinkler feedwater, boiler feedwater,
landscaping amenities, natural or constructed
wetlands recharge, and similar uses. Such reuse
is commonly used in Grant County for
irrigation. Spray irrigation and other
groundwater recharge options require that
reclaimed water meet Class A drinking water
standards prior to being com,mingled with
groundwater. This can be accomplished in a
relatively cost-effective fashion by constructing
additional downstream treatment facilities to the
secondary effluent treatment system. It is
feasible that nearly all wastewater discharge
from even a large, "wet" industry could be
beneiicially reused within the industrial lands.
Existing Conditions
Site A — Wheeler East
The nearest source of tnunicipal wastewater
disposal is from the City of Moses Lake, who
provides sewer service to other industries
located in the Wheeler Corridor to the west of
Site A. City ofiicials have indicated that they do
not intend to provide sewer service to Site A at
this time. Thus, wastewater disposal will likely
need to be developed by the County or industrial
developers.
Site B— Ephrata Airport North
'fhe nearest source of municipal wastewater
disposal is from the City of Ephrata, to the
southwest of Site B. City officials have
indicated that they do not intend to provide
sewer service to Site B at this time. 'Thus,
wastewater disposal will likely need to be
developed by the County or industrial
developers.
Site C — Beverlv Burke
The nearest source of municipal wastewater
disposal is from the City of George. However,
City officials may not provide sewer service to
Site C at this time. Thus, wastewater disposal
will likely need to be developed by the County
or industrial developers.
Site D — Martin
The nearest source of municipal water supply is
from the City of Quincy. City officials have
indicated that they do not intend to provide
sewer service to Site B at this time. Thus,
wastewater disposal will lilcely need to be
Granz County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 26 PCI
CHAPTER 4... ...INFRA.STRUCTLiR� DEVELOPMENT PLAN
develaped by th� County «r industria3
develapers.
Needs �ssessment
In order to assess r�eeds and select the most
cast-effective means of wastewater treatment, a
feasibility study wxll need to be conducted prior
ta de�elopment of the site for industriai
accupancy. The feasibility study will determine
the most feasible and oost-effective method of
wastewater t�reatment and dispasal.
Because of the limited availability of water
supply in the Basin, beneficial reuse of
wastewater rnay be vital to siting any industry,
especially "wet" industry.
The feasibility study could be conducted in
advance of development by th� Caunty, or it
cauld be conducted by the developer. In either
approach, cornmunication with the Washington
State Dapartment of Ecology and the
Departm�nt af Health wiil be necsssary to
detezmine deszgn criteria far development. Suah
a Feasibility study and assooiated planning and
perrnitting process may require a year or rr�ore.
Porential Costs
Generally, as sewage flows requiring treatrnent
increase, sa does the cost per gallan for
t�eatment and discharge. Advanc�d treatment
systezns can be expensive both to construct and
to aperate and maiz�tain. Costs should be further
evaluated based on the needs assessment in a
feasibility study.
L�'xisting Conditivns
A h '
Caunty Comprehensive Plan/EIS. Fi�ures 8-1
and 8-2 frorn that Plan show the transportation
network serving Grant County and existing
199$ and forecast 2018 traffic volumes,
respecCively. r�.ccess routes serving the siies are
as follows:
Site A — Wheeler Eas�
Served by the follawing Couniy roads: Wheeler
Road, O Road, P Road, Road 2 and Raad 4. SR
I7 can be accessed west aiang Wheeler Road. I
90 can be accessed south along O Road.
Site B— E�hrata Airport North
Served by SR i 7 along the eastern border. SR
28 can be accessed ta the north alon� SR 17; SR
282 can be accessed to the sauth along SR 17. I
90 can be acc�ssed atong SIi 283 to th�
sauthwest or SR I7 to the southeast.
Site C — �everd,LBurke
Served by I 90 in the southeast portian of the
site and by Beverly Burke Road1SR 281.
Site D — Martin
Served by Cnunty Road 10.5 NVti aiong tk�e
northern border; County Raad {� runs thraugh
the site. SR 28 runs along the sauth border. I 90
can be accessed by taking SR 28 west ta SR
2�1, then sauth ta access near G��rge.
Pubtic iransit is provided through the Grant
Transit Autharity. Neither site is currently
served dixectly by public transit, si�ee the sites
are predominantly undeveloped. Service is
provided ta within one mile of both sites.
All sites are adequately served by State Routes
and County arterials having adequate capacity.
Whiie no new roads are anticipated, fiiture
development rnay require improv�tnents to
existing roads depending upon the types of
industrial development. Improvements could
inctude increase in pavement width, shoulder
�
�
campre ens2ve inventary of Cownty y���l��? and sfizctural impravements to
transportation facilities is provided in ihe Grat�t
Grant County Mnjor Industriul Develapments December 1999 �
GMA Complianee Assessment 27 p�j
CHAPTER 4... ...INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
provide capacity to accommodate industrial
loads for a major industrial facility.
Projected Traffic Generation
Future industrial development will result in
vehicular trips: Trip generation can be highly
variable depending on the type of industry,
Based on data from the Institute of Traffic
Engineering Trip Generation Manual, vehicle
trips range from 2.1 trips per employee for
manufacturing facilities to 3.34 trips per
employee for industrial parks.
The number of employees is also highly
variable depending on the type of industty.
Typical worker population for industrial sites as
published in reference texts varies from 5 to 15
persons per acre. Based on an analysis of
thirteen industrial operations in Grant County
(See Table 3-2), a total of 576 acres were used
to employ 3,430 employees, an average of 6.0
employees per acre. Based on 3,34 trips per
employee and 6.0 employees per acre, a total of
20.0 trips per acre are estimated. Based on 20
trips per acre, the trip generation is estimated
for each site as shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1
Estimated Trip Generation
Net
Gross. Developable Estimated
Area Areal Trips/ Daily
Site Name (Acres) (Acres) Acre TripsZ
A Wheeler East 2,040 816 20 16,320
B Ephrata Airport 1,560 624 20 12,480
North
C Beverly Burke 520 208 20 4,160
D Martin 580 232 20 4,640
Net developable area calculated as 40% of gross area.
2 Estimated daily trips equals Net Developable Area multiplied by 20 trips/acre.
Projected Impacts on Transportation
System
Level ofService
Level of 5ervice (LOS) is a classifcation used
to describe the capacity of a transportation
facility. This measurement compares the
number of vehicles using the facility with the
maximum number of vehicles the facility is
designed to accommodate under prevailing
conditions and is expressed by grades ftom "A"
through "F". LOS A is the best, or free flowing;
LOS F is the worst, or congested. Level of
Service (LOS) standards for major County
roadways are established in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan/EIS. LOS standards for
state routes are identiiied in the Quad County
Regional Transportation Plan. The present
traffic conditions on roads serving the sites meet
LOS A.
Concurrencv
The GMA and the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan/EIS require that new
development be prohibited unless tran5portation
improvements to accommodate the impacts of
developrnent or funding strategies for such
improvements are made concurrent with the
development or will be financially planned to be
in place within six years. If proposed
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance.4ssessment 28 PCI
CHAPTER 4.., ...INFI2ASTR.UCTURE DEVELOPleVIENT PLAN
development is expected to decrease LOS belaw
adopted standards, iranspartation improvements
must be made. Development must provid�
mitigatiart of qff-site traffic impacts.
Based an the estimated trips generated far each
site as shown in Table 4-1 belaw, the fallawin�
impacts are expected:
Site A — YYheeler East
An additianal 16,32Q trips per day would result
in a tatal average daily trips in excess of 21,Q00
on Wheeler Road in 2018, resulting in L(7S F
based on current capacity. Portions of Wheeler
Road will °need to be upgraded to principal
arterial standards to accornmodate estimated
t�affic. Improvernents ma�y also be required to O
Road NE, although current traffic is very law at
about 1,000 trips per day. Improvements may
also be required to SR 17 south of Wheeler
Road.
Site B— E,phrata Arrpart North
An additional 12,480 trips per day would result
in a total average daily trips in excess of I6,490
on SR 17 in 2018, resulting in L4S B which
exceeds esta.blislaed LC)S standards. No
improvements appear to be required. Traffic
incxeases at the intersection of SR 1� and
Stratford Road wauld also be experienced due
to travel fram the site east to Moses Lake and
on to I 90. Based on anticipated capacity, the
2028 LOS sl�o�ld remain at LOS A.
Site C — Beverlv Burke
An additional 4,16a Crips per day would result in
a total average daily trips in exoess aF 5,040 on
Beverly Burke Raad in 2018, resulting ir� LOS
A. No imgrovements appear tc� be required.
Site D — Martin
An additional 4,64Q trips per day would result in
a total average daily tcips in excess of 9,49Q on
SR 28 and 11,84U orn SR 281 in 2018, resui�ing
in LOS A on bath routes. No improvements
appear to be required.
Because two sites may be designated as master
planned tocations far majar industrial
develapment, the impacts of traffic must be
evaivated on a cumulative basis. While the
transportation system and impaots for most
cambinatians of sites are relatively independent,
the designation of both Site A— Wheeler East
and Site B— Ephrata Airpart North could have a
higher cumulative irnpact than each, sit�
independently, particularly on SR 17.
Impacts of future development activities, if any,
will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA
rules, the Grant County Compxehensive Plan,
and other pertinent development regutations
when proposals for futtiue development are
received, The County will consider the irnpacts
of industrial development on traffic and
transportation improvernents and may require
appropriate rnitigation based upan plans,
policies, rules and regulations in effect at the
ticne of c�evelopment.
Multi-modal7'ransportation
Impart of raw materiais and export af fin�shed
products are typical requirements of industrial
processes. Transport of �reigh�, materials and
goods wilt likely be perfarmed, in the m�st
econornical manner, and may include a
combinatian af water, raii, road and air
transportation. The most predominate mode of
freight transpart in Grant Caunty is via surface
�raads; truck-raii mode is used in parts of Grrant
Caunty.
Sites were identzfied and evaivated partly based
on their proximity ta rail and air lransportation
fa�iiities. Use of rail made is expected to be
high for Site D— Martin, Site A— Wheeler East,
and Szte B— Ephrata Airport Narth. No rail is
available to Site C— Beverly Burke.
�
�
Grant County Ma� jvr Industrial Developments December t 999
GMA Compliance Assessment Z9 PCI �
CHAPTER 4... ...INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Transporeation Demand Mana e� ment
Most likely, industrial land tenants will develop
capital intensive industries that will operate 20
to 24 hours per day with multiple work shifts.
While the daily traffic levels will be within the
ranges described, the peak-hour volumes will be
reduced on local and regional transportatian
facilities because of work shift starting times
occurring during off-peak hours.
Needs Assessment
Infrastructure needs are dependent both upon
the sites selected for designation and the types
of industrial activities that develop. In order to
assess needs, a feasibility study will need to be
conducted prior to development of the site for
industrial occupancy. The feasibility study will
determine speciiic improvements necessary to
accommodate specific industrial activities.
The feasibility study could be conducted in
advance of development by the County, or it
could be conducted by the developer. In either
approach, communication with the Washington
State Departrnent of Transportation, the Quad
County Regional Transportation Planning
Organization, Grant County Depariment of
Public Works, and affected cities will be
necessary to determine design criteria for
development. Such a feasibility study and
associated planning and permitting process may
require a year or more.
Wheeler Road west of Site A may have
structural deficiencies due to high industrial
truck loadings. Congestion may also be an issue
at the intersection of SR 17 and Stratford Road,
especially if both Sites A and B are designated.
Capacity and structural analysis should be
conducted by the Grant County Department of
Public Works to assess this need.
Maximizing the use of rail will relieve stress on
the local and regional road system and provide
flexibility and , incentive for a variety of
industries to locate at the sites. Opportunities to
maximize use of rail for movement of goods
should be identi�ed.
Transportation demand management may also
be appropriate to reduce the strass on capacity
due to employee trips. By implementing
effective demand management measures,
system demand can be reduced and capacity
effectively "increased" at a lower cost than
construction of roadway improvements.
Opportunities for expanded use of park-and-ride
facilities and transit should be maximized.
Potential Costs
The cost of roadway improvements is dependent
upon the extent of improvement. Overlay of an
existing roadway with asphalt concrete
pavement costs about $120,000 per mile, while
widening and drainage improvements would
add to that cost.
In the vicinity of Site A— Wheeler East, Grant
County includes several improvements on their
Transportation Improvement Plan for 1999-
2004. Improvements include an ACP overlay of
Wheeler Road from Moses Lake corporate
limits to O Road NE and grading, drainage and
surfacing improvements to L NE Road from
Kittleson Road to Bridge #252.
PUBLIC SERVICES
General Development Issues
Future industrial development is expected to
require additional need for public services.
Consiruction activities necessary to develop
infrastructure and site improvements for the
sites may result in a minor and temporary
Grant County Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 30 pCl
� � CHAFTER 4.,. ..,INFR�STR.UCTITRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
increase in the demand placed an public service
providers. This demand increase could have
temparary effect an locai poiice and sheriff
departments, providers of emergency medical
services, and local fire districts. The temporary
canstruction impacis on local schaols would be
at most minor, as few out-af-region constntction
warkers are likely ta be accampanied by
families. Canstruction-related impacts to local
utilities are aiso expected ta be rninor and
temporary.
Operation af industrial facilities is expected to
require additional �ublic services. As shown in
Table 4-2, industrial developrnent can be
expected to result in a significant number af
new jobs, ranging from about 1,250 for the
srnallest site (Site C— Beverly Burke) to nearly
5,000 at the largest site (Site A— Wheeler East).
Profected Demand
Typically, every new job created in an urban
area results in additional new jobs and
businesses to provide necessary services to the
expanded econozny. This phenomenon is
referred ta as an "empioymeni muitiplier."
Based an preiiminary research canducted by
Chase Ecanomics, the Washingtan State Input-
Qutput Madei {1993) indicates that an
employment multiplier of 2.12 is typical for the
emplayment sector referred to as "industrial
trucks and tractors," Thus, far every direct j ob
in thjs sectar, which best represents the
industrial development expected at master
planned locations, another 1.12 jobs will be
created within the local area.
However, not all of the new jobs (both direct
and indirect) are expected to result in "in-
migration" to Grant County. Sorne of the new
jobs may be filled by those currently
unemployed and residing in the County. �'or
example, some of the new indirect, service�
industry jabs may be filled by a previously
uaiemployed spouse or a teenager, and wauld
nat result in in-migration. Based on data
published by the Washington State Empioyment
Securiiy Department, an in-migration factor of
50% is appropriate for Grant County. That is, 1
out af every 2 new jobs wili be filled with in-
migrants.
Tabte 4-2
� Estimated Emplayees
Net , ...:.. Total
Gross Developahle Eshir,nated - � � Estimuted
Area Ar�al Empioyees Totai ,�mp%yment New
Site Name (Acres) (Acres} per Acre� Employees Multiplier3 Johs
A Wheelar East 2,040 816 6.0 4,896 2.12 10,380
� Ephrata Airport 1,560 624 6.0 3,744 2.i2 '7,937
North
C Beverly Burke 520 208 b.4 1,248 2.22 2,646
D Martin 580 232 b.0 1,392 2.12 2,951
Net developable area catculated as 40°10 of gross area.
2 Estimated employees per acre based on anaiysis of i 3 industries in Grant Caunty,
3 Source: Washington State Input-Output Model, 1993, Chase Economics
I''rojected Impacts on Public Facilities
�
�
Grant County Major Industrial Develapments December 1999
GMA Cvm liance Assessment , 31 Pe1 �
P
CHAPTER 4... ...INFRAS'�RUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As for transportation, the cumulative impacts ot
designation and development of two master
planned locations for major industrial
development must be evaluated. The most
significant impact would be for the designation
of Site A and Site B, creating a cumulative total
estimate of 18,317 new jobs. Applying an in-
migration factor of 50% results in 9,158 new
residents to Grant County. Based on designation
of both Sites A and B, the impact to capital
facilities is estimated in Table 4-3 below.
Type of Capital
Facilityl
Corrections
Juvenile
Detention
Law Enforcement
Offices
Solid Waste
Needs Assessment
The impact of potential future development may
create deficiencies in the number of law
enforcement deputies, juvenile detention beds,
and conections officers. No deficiencies are
likely to be created in solid waste systems or
administrative offices.
Table 4-3
Estimated Capital Facility Impacts
Units
)fficers/1,000 population
Beds/1,000 population
Beds/1,000 popularion
Deputies/ 1,000
nincorporated populatior
Acres/1,000 popularion
Sq. Ft./1,000 population
Availabiliiy of system
LOS
Standard
2
0.40
3.00
0.33
0.55
0.00
:
1 See Chapter 8 of Grant County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS for descriptions.
2 Leve( of Service standards established in Grant County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS.
3 See Chapter 10 — Utilities Element of Grant County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS for description.
4 Computed by multiplying LOS standard by the estimated 9,158 new residents.
5 Additional population not expected to impact solid waste facilities.
New
Facilities
Req'd4
4 Officers
28 Beds
3 Beds
5 Deputies
None
11,450 Sq. Ft.
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 32 PCI
CHAPTER 5
FIl'�TTAl°�CI�1L PLAl'�T
� «
`This presents a financial plan for development,
inciudin.g an estimate af property tax �eneration
an,d a discussian regarding potentiai funding
sources. Costs of developm:ent are discussed in
general in Chapter 4,
� �� �� « .!� � � 4.
M
There would be a positive potential impact an
public services due to industriai developrnent in
the form of inereased property tax reven�e.
Assessed value can be variabie depending upan
the capiial intensity of the de�velopment.
Presented below in Table S-1 is a summary af
assessec3 value for industrial properties located
in three areas of Grant Caunty. Assessed value
ranges fram just over $I2,000 per acre at the
Grant County Airpc�rt io more than $90,40Q per
aare in the Wheeler Corridar, where industriai
development is both capital intensive and of
high density. Ir� the tniddle of the range is the
primarily agricultural pracessing industry in the
Warden area at abaut $44,Op0 per acre.
Because the intensity of industrial development
for the master planned locations is expected to
be higher than that in the Warden or Quincy
az°eas, but less than that in the Whealer Corridor
area,.an average assessed value of $75,000 per
gross acre is apprapr�ate. Based on that average
value and I999 tax levy rates, the..estimated tax
revenue generated by the pot�n�ial sites is
presented in Table 5-2.
If both Sites A and B were designated, the tatal
combined assessed value upon fuli development
intensity is estimated at $270,000,000, and
would distribute annuaiiy an estimated tatal of
$482,000 ta the County Generai Fund (Current
Expense} and mare than $600,400 to the County
Road Fund. Distributian fram property tax
revenues would also be made to special
districts, schoal districts and cities. An increase
in lacai retaii sales and use tax can also be
anticipated as a resuit of industrial developinent,
Th�se funds can be us�d to maintain desircd
levels of publie services.
Table 5-1
Esfimated Assessed Valrce'
ToPul 1998
Gross 1998 AssBssed
Industriul 1Vo. af Areu Assessed Value per
Area Accounts (Acres) value Acre
Warden 25 373.44 $ 16,329,330 $4�,727
WheelerCarridor 36 1,541.43 $139,253,614 $90,364
Grant Countv Airport 6$ 6,5$4.76 $ 81,005,350 $12,302
Econnmics & Reed Hansen & Associates
Grattt Caunty Ma, jvr Industrial Developments Deeember 1999
GMA Campliance Assess»tent 33 pCj
�
�
�
CHAPTER 5... ...FINANCIAL PLAN
Table 5-2
Estimated Annual Tax Revenue
Total Tax Revenue/Levy
Gross Assessed .�ssessed Rate2
Area Value per Value 1.7854 2.2226
Site Name (Acres) Acrel (�1,000) General Road
Fund Fund
A WheelerBast 2,040 $75,000 $153,000 �273,166 $340,058
B Ephrata Airport 1,560 $75,000 $117,000 $208,892 $260,044
North
C Beverly Burke 520 $75,000 $ 39,000 $ 69,631 $ 86,681
D Martin 580 $75,000 $ 43,500 $ 77,665 $ 96,683
See analysis included in Table 5-l.
2 1999 Levy rates.
AVAILABLE SOURCES OF
x�vENUE
In addition to the increased amount of property
tax revenue generated from industrial
development, a variety of funding sources could
be used to fund necessary improvements.
Transportation Funding�
Transportation improvements rely on local,
state and federal revenues, including the Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT), County Road Levy,
Surface Transportation Program, Bridge
Replacement Program, Rural Arterial Program,
and County Arterial Preservation Program. A
complete description of revenue sources is
provided in Chapter 8 of the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan.
Capital Facilities Fundang
Capital facilities improvements, including
water, sewer, and public facilities, are funded in
a variety of ways. Grant County has three
general criteria for the funding of capital
improvement projects. First, the County is
committed to meeting all County, state, and
federal laws and regulations, particularly as they
apply to public health and safety. Second, the
County wishes to meet its capital facilities needs
in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Finally, the County attaches much irnportance to
fmancial responsibility. While the County
anticipates that the capita� improvements
eontribute to greater economic vitality, fscal
prudence dictates that the County must plan for
relatively flat revenues over the next few years.
In the Transportation Finance Plan for 1999- Capital outlays in Grant County tend to vary a
2004 included in the Comprehensive Plan, bn'eat deal from year to year, depending on need
Grant County anticipates nearly $90 million in and ability of the County to secure grants to
t�ansportation revenue over the 6-year period. �d particular projects. In the past, Grant
That plan includes a transportation "working County has not typically allocated general fund
reserve" of about $2.5 million. However, the revenues for large capital projects. Rather, these
MVFT revenue is expected to decline due to projects are funded through bond issues, state
recent passage of Initiative 695. and federal grants, and revenues from enterprise
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 34 PCI
� � � �HAP'�ER 6... ...FIl�11AN+CIAL PLAN
funds, such as water and salid waste fee
revenues. Speciai assessment or special benetit
disirict farznation, inciuding local improvement
district bands, is another potentiai method af
funding prajects. The County also taps the
resaurces of the private sector to help pay for
capital canstrzzctian, through develc�per
contributions which are either imposed or
negotiated.
Locczlly-Generated Re�enue
Locally generated revenues can be used to caver
costs of capital facility irnprovements as well as
the expenses of replacin� and updating existing
facilities, administration, operations and
maintenance, and debt service ori previous
systern improvem�nts. Typicai local revenue
sourrces include the following:
• General government taxes such as property
taxes and sales taac.
• Revenue or general obligation bonds
Local Impxovemeni District (LID), Utility
Locai Improvenn.ent Distriet (ULID}, ar
Road Impravement District (RID} formation
as an equitable assessment af benefited
properties.
Developer financing, ar impravements
made in lieu af �nancial contributiot�s,
utiiizing a vari�ty of extensions and
agreements tailored to speci�e projects.
County funding with a general faciiities
charge assessrnent made to �ach property in
the benefited azea.
Greation of Special Districts, such as a
Caunty Road Improvement District, with a
raie struct�zre to generate required revenu�s
Descriptions of these revenue options are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 of the
Grant County Camprehensive Plan. Increases in
many af these revenue-generating mechanisms
may require voter approval subsequent to
Initiatzve 695.
Non-LocalRevenue
It is impartant for the County to identify sources
of revenue available from agencias outside the
County for implementing capital impravernents.
Federal, state, anc� other public program funds
have assisted in financing capitai irnprovement
projects in the past. However, such. monies have
become increasingty scarce in recent years.
Sources of non-local funding includes both
grants and Ioans, including:
Grants:
Depariment of Community Development
Communiiy Economic Revitalization Board
USDA, Rurai I}evelopment
Rural Economic Develapment
Launs.�
Pubiic Works Trust Fund
Flexline
U�i}A, Rural Development
'The selected fiznding sources will depend on the
status of the County's existing financial
commitments, cagital and cash flow
requirements, funding source availability, and
the irnpact an the service ratss and connectic�n
charges. Potenti�l funding sources include:
Desoriptions of these revenue options are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 af the
Grant County Comprehensive Plan. Use of these
revenue-generating meahanisnns may require
voter approval subsequent ta Initiative 695.
�
�.
Grant� County Major lndust�°ial Developments Decemher 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 3S Per �
� CHAPTER 6... ...FINANCIAL PLAN
Developer Facnding
Policy included in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan requires that future
development pay its fair share of the capital
improvements needed to address the impact of
such development. Future development's
payment may take the form of:
• Voluntary contributions for the benefit of
any public facility;
• Impact fees;
• Mitigation payments;
� Capacity fees;
• Dedications of land;
• Provision of public facilities;
• And future payments of user fees, charges
for services, special assessments and taxes.
Grant Counry Major Industrial Developments December 1999
GMA Compliance Assessment 36 PCI
Appendix A
Industrial Land Use �
Inventory Database
�
�
APPEI�DIIL
_ (�tAlr'1' Co[71�iTY
IIVDf7S17RIAL LAND 1JSZ (aS DATA BASL
(1!!� DOLi.AAS)
i�d�rltW U�d i��w�d iad V��f
� T�[ Aax Ami Aaa iaamr�st
rr�a R�+d. - Ci�ei Ml(1 k 1�) T�w�ilP 23�Ra� 7�IM 0� N�+�+� �)
Iur ?�tal Pdaw� K
Yai�t Yilllt �
1 IS�UT67-000 1-H 176.7�0 Q00 176.70 SO 533�10
2 13-0T11-000 I-FI 240.00 Q00 7AQ00 50 SlOS.655
S� 41470 0.00 41670 0.00 i14Q995
H..eeiy • chsrt wl (2 � za) T.w..bip t6lA�e� txrS.c+lM zx Nd�w�pwMs� Aew)
1 15-0Q7i6-000 I-i. 367.60 Q00 367.60 0.00 da
2 15-0270-001 I-L �.40 0.00 7.�0 Q00 n/a
3 13-0271-000 I-L 10.00 Q00 40.00 0.00 N/A
4 15-0273-000 I-L 9.60 0.00 4.60 0.00 N/A
3 15�02'T.�001 I-L Q00 Z30 7.2D 5�1.010 N/A
Sub.lotal �CL1,60 7.20 431.i0 5201.010 fA
Msurw� (Wu1 �PT�) - CYri M6 T�w�►p 1S/Rwy� 73/S«etle� 27 N� �)
1 15-093�000 I-L 4i.39 0.0D 4i.39 SO da
Msthw� (VNed �f Tw�l - Ciut i14 (41� 4�) T�►P 13/Rr�S� 23lSrd� 27 (Uri�oup�e�t�d Mwir�ld+ U(:Al
1 15-0224009 I-L 1?.517 0.00 1297 54.113 n/a
2 1S-0Z?A•013 I-L 3i.00 200 �0.00 I�i,080 N/A
Sd►lold 30.9'I 200 SZ97 532,193 SO
bl�we (Swfi sf Tew�) _ cb.re iws r.�..�p isrn..e. aus.�+w. =a N�eKp�ru�d AnNI�r4M UC.AI
1 13-0034�007 Y-H 0.00 3.00 3.00 54020 51�500
2 15-003�4�OOE I-H Q00 ].00 3.00 EU Sll�SQO
g�y.�v 0.00 3.00 3.00 SO S14,S00
W�YM�b (rt �f M�etawa s� �t24) - CMK M3 Trw�s�ip l4lRay� 14PS�e11M Yi N�� �l
1 1S07i3-000 I�ii i.SO 0.00 f.30 SO da
2 19-0159�000 I-H 1.60 Q00 1.60 SO d�
3 19-0160-000 I•H T.00 39.60 46.60 SO N/A
4 19-0160-001 I-H 0.20 7.00 7.20 SO TUA
5 19-01b4003 I-H 1200 39.50 S1.S0 IO TUA
6 19-0160�004 I-H Z2i0 3i.10 61.Z0 SO Ai/A
7 21-1464�000 I-ii 7.50 Q00 7.50 50 PUA
Subdoul 30.30 3i.10 61.70 30 f0
Rs„1 Gtr - CB�rt ii6 (f �s 6e)T�p 16l[iae�� 2S/S� t(iswrpsnl�
1 7-1719-000 I 1.93 0.00 1.93
2 7.1773d00 I 0.00 1.9i 1.9i
3 7-ITlA�000 I 0.00 3.49 3.09
4 T-1'T17-000 I 037 0.00 0.37
S 7-1730.000 I 0.00 3.33 ].33
6 7-1731-000 I I.AO 0.Q0 1.40
7 7-i?3Z000 T 330 0.00 3.30
t 7-1733000 I 4.36 0.00 336
9 7-1736-000 I 0.00 1.19 1.19
10 �-iT37-000 I Q00 Q93 0.93
11 7-1739�021 I 0.00 � 0.99 0.99
12 9-1?39-024 I 0.42 0.00 0.4Z
13 7-1739�025 I Q00 0.13 0.13
Sub•total 149E 11.76 Z6.76
da idea to na eppiinWn
N!A tefm m na av�iLbl�
�,
SO
iZ1,07S
3115,OE5
SO
f109.675
SO
SO
�
59.620
5300
i1Q673
SO
SO
5306.3E0
N/A
N/A
2�UA
N/A
PUA
N/A
N/A
N!A
N/A
2d/A
N/A
N!A
NIA
SO
S333W PUD No. 2 Gr�ot Co.
5103,655 PCJD No. 2 Gsanf Co.
5140,995
SO U.S.A
SO Gnoi Caamty
SO Brow�n 6oy Foed. Ioc.
so x;� n.. w. w.
5201,O10 Kioa k., w. w.
S2D1,010
SU PL]D No. 2 Gcaot Co.
i4,115 Manawr Pat Dimiet
S2t,0E0 Mattnv� Pat Diatriet
S3Z193
520,320 I-Lcmoo. JM
514 300 1ime�x, 7J�.0.
514.300
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
521,073
si�a.oss
i0
5109.675
50
SO
SO
59.620
�
S146T5
SO
SO
53�6.3E0
U.S.A.
Pf� Na. 2 Gtaat Co.
EelktabQg, E.CJKM
Fz��F,.C./KM
Fri�-�....�u,.CJKM
Fr��T+��F,CJKM
Yagesm, D.FJS.R
B�own. GAJB1..
Bro�va G.AB3..
BdA Teeh Chmiial
Saddk Mt SuQQIy Co.
Sadd�e ML SuppFy Co.
Bm�rn. (3r1.lB.L.
Fream�n. P.C.
Saddk i�lt. 3upQiy Co.
H�ttlt,lt, D.L./C.I.
Wilamt. RDJL.J.
iiu� I.Ivi
Fiuu.I..Nt.
Jto�ss, C.RJS.M
�f
:
��
�
�
.7
t
{
�
��� ���
���
�
�� � � ���� -��� � ��
� � .�
� � � � � �� �� �� ��
���� ���� . � .��� .� � .��. ��
��-3�� � �� � �� ��� � �� � ���� ��
����� ����g ������ ������
� M� ��'��� �� �� a
�
3 .� � � .� .� .�
�� ������� �- �� ar��� ��
�� � .� �
Q -��-- � � � v����Q� �
� ���� ��� �� � � � �
� � ���� .��� .�� �w� � ����.� �
� � ���� � �
�� � ��� �����'� ��a� � ��"��a��
�� � s�� ��" �� ������ �������
�. � � »
'�c • � "t� e '�I; • f^ei � �{ •<.�i� at'i�'f,�.'r'c�'14R.ti'!rI'. <'�Q � ��"�'fe ������ ��1�'i��� ��N���.S
��� ��� � ���� ������ ������ ��:��z �� �z � �� »« N M� vs�"' ,� w
��� ��� � ���� G„g��a�� � ���� ��� �� ; �
� H � 1A � � ��� it � �� �� M �� �{
N H a�4
��'� ��i� $ �d.��
$�g �u v�j � $g$g
a�a «;� � aaaa
��� =�a � �a��
tr N
��p��010� STf? h 0� 0�9� � �00 W�
ev,es v;e �raoeto..:.•�aietr-:
��a���:8aooa��a�8aa
a��a�a oadr$3�� dd��d��
�i f O
�� �
�� 8
dd �
,�,�a ,� ;�.� � x�x� �xxx�� xxxxxx xxa�x�x� .�.�
� � ��� � � � ���� ��$���� ��
� � � � � O�a o�o�oo�
QQQQ Q�QQQQ QQ
.-. ... t�: N Pi (`a .-. ... .-. .- .-+ ..+ .-. .-. .... .� ... � ... W �O �D �O �O W �O � �O �O � V7 �O
.-N M 4�n �O 1'� a+UO �-+ Ctc^�f ��8h OOPp �y�y V� �p �ryp�p N
N N l`�F fi � fV t`i tV N M 'l'� t+t Nf
� � � � � �
�
5��� S��Si��Si �� Y49�r' oSi� �9�'»
�p�j �� � � ��� ��� �����
�C � M
e"°._R88 8888$8 88�$$,8 8$8$88�
o-nYfoca doddod ��3e�oosf ocioaca�c3
h
s
$8 8
Qa���.������������������
� f+l �' T
y � Ifi � � �4 ��� � �f+ � 14� �-fi����Fs
�
�
� ...�..� �............,�............,........,....
� � � � � � o �
��� � �� ��
� .-. IV rv +! v1 �O h so 4. d^:+ .M.. Q� b �!b: �,' tV N t`� c�
8
�
� �'
.�.�.�� � .� c�� `�� c�c���
� ���� � � � ����
��� � � �
� ������-� ��� ��� -.�H�����
tlii�l�y �' � �3 � 3vs °� 3 aE
•: � -: � ,g _
= � � �� -�� .�� ��-���
����'x 3�3��� 3��zrn�c� 3333�
� �� ��q�[�gQpp$�����j�s"��������� �
� �aR�N � O ��N �l9 H4i N N �� �tA � N �` N �
Y! H Mt N M
N
������p�ry{��y{��{j��{�jJgjj��+jjY������������ !o
��N N N N{N4'! N N NH N N � t6
»�� N
����a �M� � ������ ������� �
� ��� o� �� � � � it � �
'� » s�+ a�s w
?^ �
88888 8s�3��lS ������ ��88888 A
�!y docid..- rte=..:rf.na ri... e.ioa dhddc3tie^�1 n
H �I ~
g $���sj8 %8�3�$$ 8$ � :
�� ����a �s�� n�s �a�M�a da����-' �
a
� �
� �8�sg� s��s�� �� � g
����— rAd..dod d.. ei o. dM.�'�.�'�� �
MQ W h.-�
�����
���� �������
ht fV fi � i`A Pi e+� M t't M M M s+l M M iQ�a V' V V`�0' � K<^'f
�
���� �����-� -����-�-� �-���-��-�-� =�� � � _� ��-�
3333 333333 33�333 33333333 3��H3 3�3
���� ������ ��� ��� �������� �� � � � �� �
���� ������ ������ �������� ����� ��� �
� � �N
� N Yl ti1 M bl M Y! N H N N H N N N N H N N N M N H K w H� N M N N
�r
N� N N N� N N � N P N N N Y�'e N� M N H M� N N N M� g 6�i � H H '�+1
� � j � as � 2� H +^d
�. � �
� N N H �
8 O O� f3 O R7 O 4 4 O O � O t3 P O 4 O O O O O O O O O O 4 � O� O
dddd cide5doc6 oo�dodo oodoodod dodoc3 c9de5 0
�����������3��������������������
��������������������������������
� �� � ����� � � � �
� �� � ����� � � � �
�r+Ma v,�orwo.o ...r.,.�v�.,�a ^eaa.p {� e� Y��p�pq c+
w— .-. .-. .-. .-. .+ .r ('� N fd � iV fV Ci t`t !Y M M
�
8
�
�
Isdwtrhi U�irpe�d i�pew�d TNat VaM�s K i.rid Tstat (�s� p�
-__ P.�aL�ia, T�ir[ dcelt A6m Ati�a � Yil11t 1`siwt �
SE stMswa Lkt. �tt ifll t12. ll:, llb. lie. � 1X+q Tiw�iip litRre�s 2iJS�ika sl lc Ra�1e 24lS�aii�r Yb tc Oi {U� Mia)
Gt4rt Ml ta:
t 19-0i�.000 I-L 46.d10 0.110 4SA11 0 546�,625 546,625 Fi�st„�.G..
Ch+rtNI16;
1 21•i766-1)00
Z 21•17bi-1100
C,iaut i111c:
1 19�OSi7.400
2 l4-03�41Q1
3 19-0Si9�003
4 t9-OSi4 005
s i¢as�ooe
6 14VOSi9�007
7 19�i0T-0dG
C�srt1113d:
I-Fi 39.30 130.30 1'70.30 SO 5166,505 S161S,S03 � Pwaeo Co.
I•H 11.15 ES.10 46.23 S2b,i4�k,700 5339,165 529,237;665 Aa�tan Patato Co,
I•L 0.00 3t.3i 31.3t SO 524,930 524.430 Kme�eY, T.D.
t-L 0.00 6.20 6.20 574,�93 T1Z,060 SE6.355 8�!#.l.Pa.
I.L 0.00 b.AO 6.i4 S4ZD,35S 517,�W0 5437,935 WoifldU Fead � Fcctilixs Cap.
I-L 5.00 0.00 5.00 SA S4t.188 541.I60 Wotacili Feed dc Fe:tiiiasa Cccp.
i-L a64 s,23 s.t7 so sts,s7s s13,sls tie�a.ode� a al.. A�t
t-i, aao o.�s a�s w xc,sso s�,�so am�, w.�.�.
T-L IdtA Q9.70 �.'fi 51:,42D 564.360 S7i.Stll C�p,D.DdJI..
1 i'3�4591�00t► I-H 3.37 9d.% 95.33 SO 5106,ii5 510S,i85
oocr
2 ts.os91•oo2 t-Fi 3aa :.ss ss.s7 so s3°f.s�s 13'.sas
Sub�uM�i 141.M1 43q.63 STLOS S30.Z'd1.27iD 531,15p,TIQ 530.2x1,27q
"Hdbrd's Gfe^ SE KMaeroa ialu - C�rt 11I2 (12. 32a ie 126) iewo�hlP !t!lia�'JYlS�a GA Nrl�awPri+/ed +Ver) �
1 18-I1SI-000 I-L 63.53 0.90 63;.33 SO SG,3S5 56333
6
2 19-1033-001 I-L 250 0.00 260 50 S5 SS
3 i9-1833•OQI I-L 8.90 0.00 0.90 S6 52.700 17.700
SubiaW 67.?3 0.00 47.25 SO 59.064 SS.060
Mw S�u1i rt W�sr C�rridw� w 1•AO � Ch�ei M17 Tew�Wp 19lRan� 39ISMe1Mm 2q.2i. 29 4 30 (U�i�w�M�d
AewlP�vp�rwl t7GA �f Mw� [�ior) .
1 Ii•02iA.000 I-ii ?3.00 Q00 25.00 SO 51.130 SIxiO
I li-0?Si-0Od I-Fi 24i3't O.UO 14i3T 50 5�4.S1q SA4,5lQ
3 ti-aQ37�000 1•ii 0.00 14.11 14.11 5104133 5�4610 5133,7A5
4 IE�0264�000 I•H 10.16 O.Oq tQi6 #A Si.130 St.130
s st.aaa�.000 t-x aoo a.� o.� s�.rro s+,so�o sas,r�o
6 Ii-0?bi�000 I•Fi Q00 0.9i 0.9a S30.i'7'0 S4,9Q0 S9S,77C1
" r ts.a�oa t-x aaa a� a9e s�za s�,Qoa s�,rto
S Ii�OQ70.000 I-H Q00 1.23 1.?S S33,Si5 S6,250 S39i35
9 1L-0dY1•000 2-ii O.W 1.73 1,?S Sb7.175 3'6`ZSO Si3.42S
l0 IE•t127i-0QS I-F� 4.fl0 Q.S6 O.S6 SO S3,bOQ 53,600
Subdatai Yi333 2Q.E1 203.d4 S79Q,505 5133�00 543$tQ3
Ara AdJ�iring WMeler t`.errkMc M Rard N 1°iE • C4srt Nt1 p4. 14s d� I�DI T�+va�isip 19/Ra�e�e 29JSeetio� 2i
{Uui�a�pKsca�d Arerti'rrpwd UGA r[ Mwsa Laits}
1 tE�OqO I-L 179.41 N/A i79.+61 543,403.100 5713.705 T44,IIt,E05.
2 Ii-0Q.14�OW I-L l.30 0.04 1.50 SO S1031�0 S1QSW
3 lt-0�1Q-0114 I.i. 166.31 tJlA 166.S1 E1,79T.�05 I7ii,030 52,379.73i
4 li-0Q+q�000 I-L 6W.Q0 0.00 6�0.00 SO t32Q00D S.S2�400
S 19�0163�tliD0 I,L 12,73 34.33 #Si TO 5+/9.SA5 519.545
6 14�0153�W1 I•L 1.30 T7.'f0 19.0a SO 533.450 SS1.458
T 19�A�d3�Ot12 i-S� 4.?3 11.3t il.i3 SO S3?,20Q 53?,200
E 14�OA6S�040 T•I� 0.70 9.10 9.10 SO SZ7.330 S2T.350
9 19�O+i6i�001 I•L 3.Oi 9.38 t23i S1.t6i910 �.:30 St,237.?40
IO 19�0�63�OOZ I-L q.3Q 6.#Z 7.32 SO 534,100 534.100
11 19�OAbS�003 I•L Q00 4,i9 4.i9 i419,900 �31,7E5 5431,685
SulswW 1.003.50 93."12 1,099.Z2 546,791.615 51,332Z,b93 5A9,114,310
12 2i-0�212-000 I»H
i� �s�tu.c�oa z•H
14 I S�1GL39�100 I-H
13 li-aQA2�W1 T-FI
16 19-0211-0W t•H
ti 19-aCt12-001 T•ii
a/. nd'mis to not �applic.bla.
N1A raEea to mt avaihbia,
��
0.00 i.06
0.91 0.00
d�1.Si B.Od
1d92 4.QQ
1,2E 1l.b2
a�t• s.�
l.06 5323.2Z0 $St,f20 S3T1.140
0.91 IO E6,3TD Sd,370
4i.St SO Sbr,r,6i5 3Q,6E5
26.7I SO 52.3�0 fZ.340
19.9b S3ba390 S22,p30 17:,440
s.ca si.soo s�as ssaas
7a�. E.CI1.C.
Fc�tiim Seai, iac.
Rrrbsaa. G.E./C.
Wilbur•Ellis Co.
W'sl%a-E33is Ca.
Buia�gtao 23attwn RR Ca
C:nb�bia Ba+ia S�aad�
il�iorm. L
Cah�bia S�+ia S�edit
Ca�umbia �asio Saec�.
S+nit6. C.I�i.JN.H.
��.
c�. s.� s..d�
CaiumbiaH�inSa�d��
Hmah. L
Paoii9c NW S�gatCo.
PiJD b1o. 2 Cme1 Cumty
kioca P�ooer� LI.0
Padt4e 2�W Su�erCa.
J+oran4 H» at rL
3ao�� I3.. d. M!.
Advanoed Siliwm MrQi�ls, Joc.
LSavir�a� iilvi
1�%ii�aa lodwwaM. iasc.
Wfll�owan 1�, L�s.
A�i �er1'Co
MciCsy Soed+Ca.
E1CA tsohal. loc.
Hady, MC1G,
Mic�ie. 7,,., CPA
i.e�hwn, D&S.L.
GmPbell. L1D.
i= c� i=
sss
�}�
O O 9
�
O � O
N � �
�
���
M � �
���
���
���
���
� � �
�
i
p..iO�N A'�'�'' "' �.
����y �
� �"
� �_� �
xx�acxxxx c
s
�
t
W u O¢ w t w O r d �
e oS$$ �$°�'°�`
� O�� O�� o V J
� 8�Si�ia�Sb.'�
V �j� f:1�y'��Op�p qM
^�J O#i.lOt �ON J
M
�
u
�
u
N
�
�
N
�� ��
�{� N N yf
O O� O O U
�
� W N� O� O M� 7 P V � A w!� 1�
� _�� _����r ���r
�� � _.. �w
� J a � �
.� _ � �_�_� ��..
.�
�- � i= i=• i= i� +�- �- i� c� e= �° r� c�-
.
�
R, �`
��f%Pt5 f+�f�rOsfs !�:""QM
� lt'°�g+� gu�g 8 $+���
�
�+ �
�i�',�x� P3�8$` R3 �8°."8
� �♦w pjspe.+ !(�.: oN�q�pP�f�y u�D;p.....«{,y
� FiQ1 W W 1wQyQN O�O�a•• �0
�
�~.. �
�����������s���
�� `� �s �� � :I�
���s o$���� ����
�
��� ��� � � �
�� ��� �$���� ���7�
� .� m
� �� ������ ����
�� ������ ����
�
�� � � �
�� � �
iT [wwA W N.w••0 �tY�O+tA Ai.i �.�..p�W es
WW_ ��� _�_
j� � � � r
6� ....�.- ...�
x x�xxxx x����x� x�:��x ��
�
W v af7...Otno _..P`wi�So'�N laA,�'p'P� �
�w � 8 �8��8$ �$88s"��'s8 i�w`��S'.2t
� f� fl f�P�?�QP�' P*Mf� s�?q �s"�y� ��
� T �
� N s 8��gsn ��s�s�s ���»g a
� � ��[,,,,,,�Q;u.�{,.!� .a�`Spl+rP{Gp��. pN a�pl+�yw`�:: ��
w � C N N N� H�i,9 Ei � i� �� A O G O O��
N ,�
u a � ��«
� g � � ��� �
� �� � �
� � �s ��� �� a � � � ��a�'�
�S
�
u
N
�
�
a
�
�
� � ������ �����$� ����� ��
� ����=r� � A r�� ��.�� ��
� �������������������
� ������ ������� �����
� ��N��� ��� ��� �� ��
����� ������� �
� �- �
�
ti"y.�✓'
t,,�"
� � ��
� � �� _ .:
�� '� .� ,� = x � � .� .� .� �; � � � � , � ; � ,,; �
� � �s . �� - . .; �- �� ,�.
�t7 3 1! Gt �' L`� 3 y� � ti f'i y R`'; fi �i �t �; fi i�
�,, • '`��cictcfc3^ � � A �.:-:�`� w� � ����3� 3 3 •�3y�.��� ��o�� � � �,��
� c� ri rs c3 �° � � � � W � � -, � � � � � �p q d °� .� � rt N c�
� ������������������������� �����������������.������ ������.
� � ��y ��$���p�.��p(c�. $#p������ry.('� ������ �"�.i/.(� ����i�,�[" ��j�j`�� �� � �� gs $ � ��� ���((� �
'� N N N Oli a1 � 4f N�W N�N � H�� N N N ��N �� �si H��Hs+4b4 `dN ���N�N � M����� �N M �N � N
� Yf p�
N
�� � � �$����� ���y��� ������ ���M�{ �� ��{�� ���# $ �� nN��+( $��.j��.( ���...���[[[��� �
N � a si�y .�ys q(�((y�pry�jj jaa aoCo.otaC �i�r,�7j � '����R � Li����pA�+JN p��} •Ms� p
N YS �� H N N W H N� N N M! 4f W N N N N N N N iA N N i+{ �� N N N � M !N i4 11 N�� N/A N� H�� M N
N
� � � �������� ������������ ����. �� ����� ��s ���� �����.� ��a���� �
` H N N � a ��� � �� N� Y O
� N e.i
i+t
i
6� 88888888 888888 888888 888$ $88$888$ 8��y�::��0 8�tf��fi's� ��#���� �
�� r3 c3 dcidotfoGid dd�d�d dos3Cddd r,iooda otide3oe3od �dd-+d.»e3tici .-o«---�-• ������� �
F•
to 8 8�'y�:»88d 8:4$8F3$ �Sl�8R�'€i"d, R
�� � d ««4«< «<4rG< <t««< <E<` . ««d«< w<�"�d»ddcF .-oocod ���ia �a �
�������s� ������ �,�"��.'�'� �:���a ��,'���.�.�.`� a.�."
�
�
8 e�' '.4$$�:i�8 88S���i'v 8a5��5�°;R$ s�•
a a daa oac� oo.._�� a�.��,M�� �
������������������������a��������a�
� � ���2�;,?�?�� ���-?�-� �-?�?�.#.aa .a.a.a�aa .,�..�a..�a.,ga...� .;�..�aa..�..�.�,a ,s ,s a..� ;aa..�a ..a«.aa..a..aa.a
O.. N e�lY wti0 q O� e4 .� N Hf vf h OOT�.�.�~.N» .�.. �.�.. �.�+� Q id ^^1�
..�^ i
��������� � Y ��� � � ���������������� ���
._ ... .. .. ... .. .. .. _. .� .. .. .» .. .. .. .. �. .. � .., .. .., .» � .. ._ .. .» r. �. �. r. .» .- '. .» _. .r .. .. ... .. ... �. .. �. ... .. .., ... .. � �. ... .� �,
< vt +O Q� ao o. b.+ :V +: ^�n �� Or° � p �y M �} v� �pppqp N PI ry� vt �p f'� �e O� p N MI +� vt �p N fq O� p Pt M vt ip !� so Os p
..w .... �y Ct ti N N t`a t`: �(V N e1 f�1 M M M a'1 N! M PI M�1' � V�'f V?'V V� N �1 wl �Y VS Y'1 Yf V1 Y/ �8
�� ��,: �a(�
N K
�pN�8� ��
N � H � M
���� � �
w `� �
���g o`�a
8&$$ �85i
o�oa oocS
�
_ iri�si! U�pew�wi t�prw�ad Tf4e1 Y�iwft I.rrd TMai ZdwrN'
P�4� z�Wt ACLa� AiZ1ft A� Iarp�it YllYlt YJYIIt S�]!lltl'�
a r7�ssr.00a i-�t o.a o,ao a� so rs.a�oo sz�oo us. � x�a„ary co.
9 ».oss�.000 r.xt aoo o.zo a�o � n.oao sss�o n,um.s.o.
i8 1?-0339�Ot14 Z-�i 0.06 O.ZI 0.21 �3i,#ZS 37.000 543.A?S I'.k�ictC.Y.
i l 17ASbp�000 I•Fi Q00 1.22 1.22 5�44,945 513,4i0 SSi.ATS }3eQbum, C1L.lvi
12 17-0Sd1�000 I-H O.pO 0.2i 0.2i S1Q795 S7,U00 517,795 Strtma, M
t3 19-0Sd7^OiOKi I«ii Q{l0 B.ZS {t.�S SO S700D 57�00(} I3eI.a�E.JG.C.
14 i7�03Q4000 I.Ii 0.00 �.13 Q73 542.345 57,000 '549.365 I�.R
15 17-036S-0QO I-H 0.00 O.A1 0.41 510.475 S?„S00 S1E,I7i Gotti,ti.B,
16 1?-4566�000 I-FI 4.U0 4.73 0.23 SQ ST,000 57,000 T�el.a�o.ElC.C.
16 l7-0Sbi-000 I-Ii 0.00 0.Z3 0.?3 S11.RS0 57.000 S1i,130 lufoo�a,D.L
�7 i��.+aao t•x o.os aoo a.os w s�oo smo R�a�.c�,
18 1?-Q570-000 I-Ei 0.00 0.47 4.47 Sb3,2Q0 511.30Q 574,7Q0 k�io�a Wcfi Veta�orry
15 17-0571-000 i•H 0.00 0.20 0.2p i41.730 57,000 541.730 C+oltL O.H.
?A 17-06'TL00a I•ii O,fJO 0.73 Q2S S33.T60 57.000 i34,760 Da Iwm. E1C.C.
21 17-0f' 73�Of)0 T-H � 0.00 1.21 I.Sl 571.200 S�b.3S5 597,335 I.ad Itti�rioo Ca. Iac,
2Z 1T-03T4990 I•Fi 0.00 O,bi 0.6i SI0;500 SI=„tii 573.3i5 Mo�» i.aius Chiash atCrod
23 1T-0373-000 2-I3 O.t10 2.d7 267 , St1 It3,b20 S13,di0 3+rdine.3.CiAs.
24 17-0ST7-000 I-iI 0.30 0.Q0 0.30 SO S�f�,000 Sd.000 Sbedoka L�.N,
15 17-037i�000 T•iI QAO 0.20 0.20 S3.2f0 T3,300 l6��T10 Sod�s. T.A.lM
?b 17-0i579d1t�d t-ii 0.2Z 0.00 �.22 SO SI.Q00 S1.Od0 C�a1sx. H, t� d,
Z7 17-06i41ND0 I-H q.00 0.21 0.21 S1.Oi0 57.000 3i3OW llananC.Y.
2E 17-0Sit-000 S•H 0.06 0.� 4.12 SI,i10 51,000 St,110 Maaks.G.C1MC.
29 i7-0ii2�000 I-H O.UO 0.23 0.?:! 523,2E0 57,000 I30.2E0 lalnrla4 Ci.C.lM.C.
3Q 17-0Si4(100 I-Fi 0.00 0,09 O.t19 SO t500 SS00 iims, R
31 l?-0dt3�00tI I-fi O.flO 0.?3 4.29 54,355 57;000 S1d,355 Ma�st�sr, A.A
32 17-0591-OW I•H p.00 0,64 0.64 S4Z,700 511.650 tS4 330 Pi�hes. Jr.. J.RJA
33 t7-0393•Q00 I-H 0.00 1.06 i,06 SO S4yi0 S�k240 Crpeata.P.S.
34 17-0S4�.t700 I-it 0.00 O.E3 Q�; ;119600 S19,I65 S13i,765 UQde��ve.AM/A
35 17-dSS7.000 T.�i
3b 17-Ob9i.+000 I-FI 0.00 t.Si t.SE S8 53C6600 iitk6�0 tJpclepavg A.14itA
3? I?-0599�Q00 I-ii 7.00 0.40 7.W SO S11M000 511,000 Pmirlluudc.R.D.
3� 17-0601.W0 I-H Q00 2.�0 2�10 SN�,OQA 516,90p S,i6,92Q C+pmus, h.. p.S.
39 i?-06t0r000 Y-Fi 2.10 O.Od 1.10 tA SSSG SS3Q 4iactCanoty
44 19-0611-000 I-H 0.00 0.17 O.i7 SS,IOiO S'1.000 S19.�OQ Ha}f4ua, CJt�.M..
41 17-Q611-01G T-H 0.00 ' q.29 0,29 t4,195 tT,S00 Si1,995 F%pb�sst, CJLdrf.
42 I7-051/*Oi3 i-ti 0.00 ld.T2 SS'72 Sd3,�0U 566�it0 5129,2EQ P�irll�sfekR.D.
43 17-0611-019 %-H 0.2i 0.00 0.2i it,305 S+1�,300 113,OOS GwijaM, 4.
d+t i7.06'Tf-000 I•H Q00 3.00 3.06 273.735 525.000 S9l.135 Pop� G.V1M.J.
3ulslotd 70.76 54.73 12S.S1 Si.Utb.2ES S70S.763 SI,Td3,OTD
P�et Mf Mwa LlufGesat CMuty lnt�ra�tl�ar! Altpoei • Ch�et Nl? (1T, IT� -17L) Twv�r6lp 19/Rant� 2i/S�ctlww W.15, i6, 22. ZS. 36. S7
30. �1. J2 k�,1(U UGA Ih IUGA of Mesea laYsA .
C1�art 17�:
i t'7-0i4i�-0OOt-FF(p�tt•it3} t23.E1 0.00 I23.E1 Si3 SI36,1bS 2236,165 C.'vfCHartimdP�tmas
: 17-0131-000 I-H 3E0.?q 0,00 3E0.70 SO 5761.400 S7b1,�00 t�1ao L�Ice Pat i5isuria
3 17•OISS�OW I•H da d� da da da dt TJeiaaiAcou�a�[
Sub.taul
sa.si
4 1'-014S-0W I-L Q00
S 1'7-014*�OOpi-L(pert•7/3) 230.24
St�b.tatai
Chrrt Subraal
Ch+rt 17b:
t 59.�9i4-004
: 17-09#t�40p
3 1"l-09i9�OW
4 tT<0441-000
S I?�099'2-000
6 17-09S4-Otlq
7 17-4947�Op0
a tti-os�'t.00a
9 1'1-0997-0t72
14 t7-it103-000
I 1 17.1CMD6�On0
n!x re[as uo not �ppiiabtn.
N/A refmrs w oa �vail�bla.
��
I-Fi
t-H
I-H
I-H
I-Fi
i•Fi
i.x
I-H
I•H
I-fi
I-H
0.00 504.51 #0 5917,565 5917,365
4.43 A.AS Sii3.614 #2,250 Slx?,td0 CitydMo�a�Lke
0.00 250.24 t0 S31�iQ0 S]1Z.t00 CMCiie�tlaodPr�atars
2i0.24 4.45 2SO.b9 Sii1,6t0 Z't15.050 5300:660
'13i.94 0.45 733.19 S1i3.6i0 SI,Z3Z.d15 S1,4iZ,225
271.01 0.40 291,Oi Sa YItk,A05 22t1t,�05
3.T0 4.00 3.74 SO 57.+IW 57,400
519.1! O.OQ 549.18 SO 5219.6�70 S2I9,d70
d70
1{3.10 0.0(S I43.20 SO Sii+F�480 S1i4,480
QQO O.W 0.00 SO 56,160 S6.1b0
33.42 B.Oti 0.00 SO S67,i40 Sd7 i40
szoa o,00 s2oo sn x�,aoo s�a,000
?SO.W 0.00 230.00 SO S42i�U00 Sd473.q00
21.30 O.t10 2t,38 50 53Z250 �
33.14 0.00 23,14 SO 523.fA0 S13,140
31.00 O,W 31.00 SO S10t.500 510�.30�
hSo�e� i.aloe Pect F?irttset
T'hs Boeiog Co
t�iu�a� L.ice Part Diiai�4
h9ora ialve Pat Uut�ia
Ddaced Aaao�t
'I'1ra H�oeit�{ CA.
�� �
Nadt Amaricm Faaip Trode
kSa�at i.aica 3nd�ucier, 3ac.
PIJD No. 2 Gtryt Comty
A� I�kn Part Di�aict
e i �
irr�i�rt�i=ri��-i=
� .� �r��
$��t��}t3?��
W
�Vp O pO} CO pOp� pGf ii tA,� pO
N H Q N O O C9 O N+� O
u � �,r�
� 0p0y��(��p}�4��N,y i��.�..
� Ci �.i1.'i�OSQN��
� �
N�,y p.,)N A
UeA � E3�-N' O�OM+JC7tiNl�lJN.r O W M J O. u h W N'�-P'
�
J �# �3 +i �i ei J V d �i oi �i �3 •.J i.l �i �1 �+i J i7 J J ��+1 +9 �l n
�������������������������
c�rf°r=t=�=c'�F-r°d=�^i��►��=i�ri=c�c=�ri=r-r=�
��.of►�' o� t�[��, P1�A'a�oiro'Fa`aiooc �
�i$$�.3��c���O'i$��&iiw�`�gg�$�g��i
�
L�
&' V GiC'i. ACiIJ�'o�Gno�1A.U.� W N
�1 �i �.i +�2 �i �0 �.i �i oE �i �ll J �i �i'�l �8 �.1
..E
O O O r p Q Q O Q O O�� C�
�����s�����������
x���x��x������x��
wp��yppii,�i�L:p..Pup�o�i!+�:^' arp _4w'
p t!, �D �$ G 4i $ O 8 i� t� 8� O O i
� OJ.�O40 AO � 00 ���00 �00 OOZS OTi O G? b� 900G 00 � Q� 000 �00 G70
A�e
4`
4� N "'�
� �fii�R�G�3ic��i������8�88��i��i�� � $Q��$��888��8�3ElS� �
b
{
$ � � �� � « � � � �
� ��u����g'�� g ������������������������� g ������g����������
� p :�� �� � "� �«"a������ ������ � � � ���� ����� z� �~ ��
g ���������� � ���U��������������������a w ��g��������������
b4 H N
01
� n ��.: v� � `°���=-'�',�= � � ���t-`i�p ��,, p �r�� �� ra� �:: ��
� ���������� o ���U������������$�������� � �����������U�����
��������������������������
������� � ��� �����������
� � � ���������
������,� ���� �� . .�. .A . . . .
���� � � � �� � ����
� � �
�
����������� ������
����'��.��� �����f .
�.�� �����-��
� �, < .� �
� �� �. � ��� � �
� �
�
: �
� � � $ .� .� .�
� � �� � ��=��
'�z.� �-k�-
��������
���� � �
�� �������� �
� s�� �
�� �������� �
N
N N
� �
�
����Y����� �
N 4} � � �
�p'�`.I..�,g.~..8�i�^! �
M�� r�"�i.�-i ��� V
.� � .�
�
,� � ,� � � . � . . � � � ,a
� �� �������������������
��� � � ��:.:�:
���������������������.���
�p���� � ��������������� � �. ���e��t����j����jjj�q� � ��.j��pq(y��1�r�( �ip/[�
H �v� � � H � � ih � � ��} �v� 4s � � N M �n � � �„ � � !~+a � N O V7 �i �S � � 4i � h !'� h t+ � N N
NNK H Y4Y5 i4 iRM H yy N N NNNN
r, H V4
�� ������,�j������.(y �^fp��.7�jj���,�.j}8��Mg �
A h
�H� N itil �N ��Irf Y1 Yl N H�N �� MFN t�
N
��s���g�a�s�s���,a���st� � �
� N N N � � N � N ~ � � � � N �
� O Q � 4'6 � � � N � �
6ti N
������ati�� �
� � � �� �
a+ w
���������
��Vq�¢������
M 4 � � �
N H N N
� � � 8 �'`u � � � $ g � g � � 8 � � � g 8 � 8 $ g ii � � � � $ � � « � � e��°9 � g 8 � 8 8 � 8 $
Cf �JC3C^!`7-+-%e^60 Gi CiG C3CC OCd OOCj� Sf O Q. G C C o+ri p---%--d a OC OG9C OCf 01>
s�«$���<aae««««ta« �
.�' �� �.1Z'���.��.����.���s��
so«$888a<�c««a•�a«y««« $
.�. �� .12��.���f.�F.:4������
�� ��������������������
�� ���������������������;
8 ��8 �
��z�.�z�.�o� �
$ 8$� �
t> C C .-. .�•
���.� � �
� � ~a �^�
4 S'
� � �� ��M
� � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � �
�--•NM ��n Vbt�oe a� O.^y..t'7.:A� ��O ^�AN NQV C7� �^CiM Q w'i._. R ooQ+O .-N e�f'�! Yr �on w t7.
... �
i � }
� �� N�
�
� '� � .� ���
�' � � :� �
�� �� �����+�`i�i'Z^i�;��x?=x���v ^i� �-i '-ii��^i-i cti;iti mcaaa���.;�fi'S
��.'�a .�.�.� 'fiq.����� ������ �� ��' ���c3��� ��� .. .�� �www����
,� ..i wwww addada�dae���law"y���-y�www�ww ��,,,��' ���,������AAA��Ufkf
��� ��Q��� �. � � ���
� ������w�w ������ ������������������������������� �����������
o wr v. o v. o m a en a v, v+ n v�
�� �������������������������H��������������d�����������`��`�����» �
�
�� �����a'�������������������������������������d������������������ �
H M 9r► H N N� iA 44 6! H N iAr VF Y4 N M H N H H 0�1
!A
�
����������������a��a� � ab� ��� �����.��������Q�s������������ �
��a,� N �»� H �����`������� � �� �i �� ��xzi � �
�
$ss�ssss�ssssgs�ssgsss$s$sssgsssssss�sss8s8gss�ss�gss�sss�ss $
c3ddcidc3cidddddac3de3cioesoefc6000000000ddc3ddc3do�oefdoddcicoacaooc3ociodo 0
�
�� �.�2���.'��.'������.��.`�����.'�.�.'���'�.�.�Z.�������.����.������������.��,�.������ 4
�
�
�����������������������������������������������x������������
.. �. .. �. .. �. �. .-. .. ... �.. .� �. .� ., .. ..» .. .. .4 .. ... .. ., ... ... ,-. �. ., ... .. `. .. ., ... ., .. .. .. .. �. «. «. .. .. �. .. ., �. «. .. «, .» t. .» «» «, .. .. ..»
� � � � � � � � � ��������������������g���������
� � � � � � � � ����������$��$�$��������������
�.�����`.°��°s.`�N�iFI����'.sKiSt:•,M.��,.�����°Mgvv�v��:�*�i<Ssrhn,�Kn;R„^,�w;��6'r3$�i��affi�
g
0
�
a�
�
� � � � �
� � ��
�����
����������
� �
U
���� ..:�� �� . ..s � �.�..; � ��� .��
���� ��� �� �.�� � . '�. �� ��3 �a�����
w w y� ww. ,�-:—„� a" 4-33
.�.�.� d �� �� �� � �_ �� � > .
�zz� � � �
��������������� ��������������������������
Rg �n o o $ w o �++ n Qvpti�$ $ +n v� $ vs » .n vs n �
� {��i�l+i�jlo��� +� �aj��pq. �3��iw��. �q n�'o2Sypi�(� ^^(�pi Ap�� �f��r. r: n���.wya� .�, �n� �n .-
� i+f N 1T'i�N vf ��� � siAH M! N� M�� ��M H V! ��N��� NH���Hi! 19 Y4 ��y� N aY�
�N N��� • N Vf i'F N N H NN N M � N..� Nii
H � �
�� ���w�i���}��v�v7+d �'i ��p��^�i �w�A��L1��^������K�PS��������iA���iR���I�� �
N N N N N � N N i{ �'� V{ ��{ h H Yf N N H u N N N N VB N N �
F �
:.
���k������ �^ ��� �a� � �,�(�������rt ������� ����a ���;��� ��� �
MC7� H� � � �� Y4�H�Np� N N���~�M �����+ � �� ��� �
H i�� H N N4 N N N N N N N � Zf , 1." N Q
Z3 H N
p p QQ p�O ppO O OC1QO COOQOP O9 Q O6QOLIOOOOQ, OOOCO�f?OOQO OOQ OO Q GO� O
c3dosiddddod c3 ddc3dr3dr3ciaci6cic�oe�ddefdcid�e3adcfddeirde3dcrcoocioceidddc �
�
ci
����������
�
c
����������
����������
�$�$�����$
��.�'�.�'��.�����.���.�'�.'iL���,�.��.��",�,�'���:�2.�2�.��.�2�.�`�.���
�������������������������������������������
Y ����� �� � � � �i� t^�F������ �d�
� ����� �� � � � ��� ������� ���
8
0
�
d
�.-•Ntn ^t�n�OF-mQ�O ��-.Nt�1V v1�O h�uO.O^N���OwiOOysfiNNlV �NfVdVf`eN�t�ft��lt��ft+�n elMtp+fMQiV'� V Y�
� �� �
Ied�rhJ Uri�pew�d Iw�prwsd TaCM Vriw�f I.�d TsW
Pii�i��. i4�B�YR � 3�L A6'S� 3��iA Y�Illit Y�t
Chet N18h � IiI:
i P4i1411�043
2 04-441�r000
3 64.84ii�000
4 OA.0471Yd00
S �
b 44-0+F7S-000
� a.o�x.000
8 84-044�-0dt
9 04-04id-000
10 04.04t1�000
1I 04-0SUL000
12 O�WSi3-0OU
i3 04�A332S�OSi
14 04�032l-019
IS • 04-03?3-0ZO
is aa.oszsaat
17 4W323�OZ3
ta aa.aaas.o�t
19 W-0S2S�3
zo aa-0s2s,aa�
u oa-�s2�sai
2Z U4-1191-001
23 OA-i33�OW
24 31-112�-0ti0
u aa-�za.s.�o
suh.aoc.1
0.00
N/A
AVA
Q00
8.00
0.00
aoo
1.06
N/A
0,00
N!A
N/A
PttA
2J/A
2aUA
xra
N/A
tdlA
N!A
ru�
4.90
Id/A
N/A
0.00
3�1i.00
a�aao
193.00
NtA
bitA
10.00
i 00.00
03Q
a.00
0,00
AVA
O.dO
N!A
rUw
PUA
tUA
bUA
ru�
21/A
A1lA
ru�►
IQ/A
b41.00
2�UA
IZtA
23Z00
O.Op
19S.Q0
�.�
Q00
10.00
100.IJ0
0.3U
{.00
f.00
p.00
4,00
4.00
aaa
o.aa
0.00
a.ao
o.00
0.00
0.�0
o.00
a.aa
6i1.00
0.00
4.fl0
232.00
343.00
�.saa.3o
S2b,�tl 542,300 569.134
S4 ST7,S00 S77,SOP3
SS�6,265 S22i,400 5709,265
SQ 511,�J S11.i40
SO 532.704 53�700
5'ii3,030 57�,000 SAqD,000
sz.s�ssass st�o.aoo sz.sas.�as
s�saa s��ao szzi,ano
51.724,305 S7i,750 SI.EOO,OSS
SA SA5.3ti0 SAS,300
533.i34.715 576.06iD 53a.910.775
s2os.�as ss4�oa s2s�3as
sT.s�o st.sao sls,aoo
SO T329i10 537,9i1�
SO S�S00 S7t.SU0
x�o s�a,oao sias�o
fi,945 Sb1,QS0 StQ9Si
5237,16Q S5LSU0 5234.660
r.s6s sz�oo saa�as
szt ns s�zs,soo s�.ats
SO L61.37D 541,3"JO
St7:,310 S50.q00 S27t.318
szo.sis stt,soo . ua.pis
S3St,'Z90 S,S1,900 5413.190
Stf 573.100 S'75.200
r�9,n�a,au st,zaa.a�o sao.nz,2ss
�d�x • Ch�et N19 TiwrAlp 20lRsa�a 2S/".�etl� 04 Nuisarpwsted A�a)
1 15-ii'TD110d A.OD 267 207
2 rs-�n2�oo t,00 o.ao i.00
3 15-1i71,i10Q O.OQ QZd 0.?li
4 240'314W1 Q00 1.10 1.10
S 2403144A2 0.Q0 0.30 O.SO
Sub�toul 1.00 3.93 4.93
Ya�e.twWi� • ch.tt ano r«we.n►p 30lRaa�t 26fS�tl+n o7 (u.lra.�wnw.d �tw.)
Y 160StT�001 O.W SO.OD iQ.ilQ
2 I6•OSii.tlDp Q00 41.26 41.Z6
gyWatd O.Of1 31.26 31.26
� vi Y�rats m Chart M22 Taw�hip 211Raog� 3dtS�c+t1M 32 (CJaiwoupeatrd e�u)
l No Ptcei ii
IZE,OSS S1Q3S0 S3i.A03
so ss>aoo u.000
m,oto si.�oo ru,sio
f0 Si3.A00 S13.A00
3p da ia
S31,p65 S.'i2„O50 Si3,t15
f30.MS 59.7D0 S�S1S
E2Q7.610 I21.06i S}2:.673
S23t,455 53Q765 53�1.220
�pirru AJrpwi - Chari MSZ (ZZ. 22�► & 22b1 Tawm�Wp 2URsn�e 241Sectiione 11: I2 tc 14 (irorp+nled +Va)
C.'h�ct M22+►:
1 16-0105�000 I-L �q0.31 0.00 40fi.St SO 5404330
2 16�Of09•OOI %-H 9.14 0.40 9.14 SO 5913
3 16At10�000 Y-H Z4.i 0.00 24.70 3A S1Y.t1S
4 i60tI1�800 t-H 21.T1 4.�U 22,Tt SO 4TN
S 16�Oi11-0Ol I-H 54•60 O.W S+t.60 SO S7A.370
6 Ib0i11-003 I•H B.Od IO.iDi 20.Oi SE2t.SA0 Sl?.t25
7 1b�Otli-004 I-ii 24.46 0,00 71D.06 SO S1T.173
8 Id-0ii2-0017 1•H 395.00 0.00 593.00 #0 539.3011
9 id.0i1300t7 i-Ft �W.00 0.00 A0.00 SO SY3.000
10 16AB14�004 I�FI 5.00 0.00 5.00 SO 57,2�
Subdotd
�
ds rei'e.n To act appiiabta.
N/A ief'as ta aa mii�blo.
� P�g�e t2
I
i.173.72 24.OS I.i93.Tf Si2i.S+W
SZ00.7ZU
�330
t91S
sta,i�s
l9,77D
t21,370
St43,665
T17,1?S
S39.S00
xiz,�oo
52,2"i0
S1,OQ99.7b0
?iuuaNr �t
�
F1+o�rn � Jao�a, Ioa
B�o. fi1t
Bry�n f oep� Yoe.
PL1D Na 2 Ga�t Co.
PUD Na 2 tinot Co.
Fttst Brpdst C�►reh of Q�newy
f3o�pitai Dirtswt ida. 2
Oregoq Y�}y' Maot of Friad+
Bluo Aihbon Pmdme Co.. Lac. •
Ptti�btsg Oc+dr�d�. LLC, et al.
I,Mmb•Wewi4 iac.
Pat Di�ai�t Na 1
Cd�bia Co}ria� L�c.
Btm Ribbao P�ar�m Ca.1ac.
Caitmbu�ot�a4iaa.
�x�co.
alus Rib&� Ym�oa co.. Iae.
C`,mtal �orn Ca., ]oa.
cd�.c4t�o��.
Htus Rii�bon Aes�i�oe Cc.. 2m.
Umb.wopco, ioe.
fi•oQs T.PJ7.E.
�'reat Hapbrrt (�arh ad�
D�RCa,
Hiue Ri6bon Psubiioe Co.,1ac.
Faw. H.ElW,C.. at aL
3rsoer F�ocboa Ca. 3ac.
�.,�, �.rw.c., a. �.
Cot4rmbi� Fowi�. Ioc.
PUL? Na 2 CziatCa�ty
��
Kciafa. �.
Mutti•Ptrpaa kLatQ SPacu
Ephntr Pat Di�uict
w���.
W,�Oca's Pevins,loe.
W�iica'a Prviq. io�.
Moomun J�fod�arsinR Ca.
Moa�mroa+L�m�eCa.
A3u�i�up�s kfofa SPats
Mutti•N+sptre Mane Spatx
Haivasaa. V.W,.7otrroo
�
_ I�d�rie�{ UaiMp�srsd i�d Tatat Yaiw � I� T�tai Nu�we N
E11mi.lY�, ?o�t A� Alr�ri A�m im0amo�ota YsYln Yairl �
L'luctlY2'Zb:
1 13-0426�q06 A-I TLA ML36 4M.36 T1.9�17,090 S17Y,EI0 T2,119,400
.9
2 13-043504d MI N/11 3T3.11 ST3.11 23�S1.T2S Si71.5�31 53.723.66Q
s
3 13-G313•000 MI 145.27 QQ� 14S.2T f0 SSt,110 SSR,I10
4 13-0S21-0O3 A-I I3.73 0.p0 13.73 SO 53:.3?3 3,3d.3ZS
Sub�lotal 13'9�00 1,017.+17 1,176.47 SS,A9i,E13 343�,180 55.433.'995
CrwNt Citr - Cinat A?3 il3 �c 7:Sa} T+rwrilp 24lAar� 2f1&ac1�s OJ (I�e�rp�rw�d MrN)
t IT•14i1T-000 SO.Zi Q40 30.13 SO S3,645 53.64-'
a/a �ef'an ur not appiio�ia.
N/A rcfas to rot m1W�e.
P�s 13
EQiir�a� Pat Dir�i4
E.pbwtaFacti)ie�i�s
E�knw Pact Di�uiat
Epbrua Pnrt Di�tnat
Havrtkt TR'a FJB.E.
Appendix B
Mapping of Potential �
MID Sites
�
�
► �
.` �
,
. ,i + + ,
.
�--.' t
�
\ ,.
.-- (
� .-- � -''' , i , ; �'.
�
. . ` ,� ,
,r�, � `
� \ �.
.�� ;%, � � � ..---
� �.,` �
\ �
♦�� * ♦ ,1;,, '' �
♦!, • y' ♦ �
M` ,
� �r��•
1�s �'�v , �
1 __..a \
�
�_ , �,w.►: , �'r•--
li� �.'���� . � `` --
� � �
�� / � �� � ` �
��, ` �/
► , 'M.� _ , ,,. �
1 ` �,r , . , .
, �� ., -,.. �.. �
. .� �
� � :; : �' - �, ,.. .,,,.r..
�
� � �. ,� ,�•-�"
� ; ,,�
�, �: . �..�'�
, : � , �....-
�'1 . .`,
ri� ' �� �
� �
�� � • � � l si
,
� •�. ,
ri'!� '��, ''�;��`�
�...,r• �+�'" �%,�,�� �� . _ / ,, �
��•�,,�',�� \�'�:�/ ��► • !, - �
�� �`��,A�.�j�a, \
� ��• / � ♦ .r, ' 1 •
��� � rf~ ,/♦' 1
r�.. , . �
� .
�r►r►. _ � , ,.:�
.,-- �
. . s►.�.
, .r.
.
., - �- ,
� > >�
,,
��
0
�
w�a
���
�
�
. r , '� • r
�
�0�
�
�
0
�
r)
��
. �. .._ �� _„�-..�-v
�
�'� ��L���
I�!
� ����V\��lS�'1
ri
,' I
- �' ;
;
, _� ,
DATE:
TO:
FROM
RE:
Gran� County Long �ange �lannin� �epat�ment
35 C Street N,W.
December 10, 1999
interested Agencies
�ost Of�ce Box 37 �phrata, Washington 98823
(509) 754-2011 rax (509) 754-0449
Peter Comenzo - Grant Counry Planning
Grant County Courthouse, P.O. Box 37
Ephrata, Washington 98823
Determination of Non-Significance
This is to advise you that the Grant County Planning Department has issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the following proposai:
Grant Couniy Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed non-project action is an amendment to the Grant County Comprehensive Pian to designate
not more than two master pianned locations for major industrial development as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367 of the GMA. Such designation wiil allow Grant County to enhance attraction of new industriai
businesses by providing a land bank of suitable industrial sites in advance of specific proposals to locate
a business in Grant Counry. The four potential sites are located within the unincorpo�ated portion of Grant
County, Washington and outside of Urban Growth Areas designated in the Grant County Comprehensive
Plan.
After a review of a completed Environmental Checklist, the Site Selection Report and the GMA
Comptiance Assessment on file with the Planning Department, Grant County has determi�ed that this
proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the e�vironment. Copies of the Site
Selection Report and the GMA Compliance Assessment are available at no charge from the Grant
Counry Planning Department, P.O. Box 37 (32 C Street NW, Room 318), Ephrata, WA 98823.
Enclosed is the SEPA Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance issued for this proposaf.
You are asked to submit any comments on the DNS by December 27, 1999 to Peter Comenzo nf the ,
Grant County Planning Department at the above address. If no comments are received by that due date,
we will assume you have no comment.
Distribution List Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia
Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Ephrata
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington State Department of Health
Washington State Dep. of Community Trade and Economic Development
Washington State Department of Corrections
Washington State Department of Parks and Recreation
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia
Washington State Utilitles and Transportation Commission
Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington 9tate Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Washington State Department of L& I
� � � US Burea�u af Reciamation
U8 Department of Game
US ARMY Corps and Engineenng
US Bureau of Land Management
Soii Conservation
Nationai Resource and Gnnsenration Service. Ephrata
Grant County N�alth Depa�tment
Grant Caunl:y PubUc Works qepartmenC
Grant County Noxious Weed Controi Board
Grant County Weed Districts
Grant Caunty P.U.D.
G�ant Couniy Nousing Authqnty
Grant Transi# Authority
Grant County Economic Deve{opment Councii
Calvilie Can%dera#�d 3ribes
IJ,S. Bureau of Reclamation, Ephrata
City of Moses Lake
Port of Moses Lake
City and Port of Cauiee �ify
City of Coulee Dam
City and Po�t of Electric City
City and Part of Hartline
City and Port of Raya! City
City and Port of Mattawa
Gity and Po�t of Wiison Creek
City and Port of Quincy
City and Port of �phrata
City of George
City af Krupp
City and Port of Soap Lake
Cit� and Pork of Warden
Grant County Hosp'stal Districts
Grant Couniy Cattlemans Association
Grant County Irrigatlon Districts (4)
Adjoining Caunty Commissioners
Grant Couniy Schoai Ctistricts (1a}
Yakima indian Nation
Colvi!!e Confederated Tribes
Grant County Realtors Association
Big 6end Ecanomic Deveiapment Council
Grant Caunty Chambers af Gammerce {7}
Ducks Unlitnited -=:
Audubon Society
�
� , � � Gran� County Lon� �ange ��anning �epar�men�
� 35 C Street N,W, �ost Office Box 37 �pnraTa, Washington 98823
, (509) 754-2011 Fax (509) 754-0449
� � - NOTICE OF ISSUANCE
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG1vIFICANCE
Description of Proposal: The proposed non-project action is an amendment to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan to designate not more than two master planned
locations for major industrial development as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367 of the GMA. Such designation will allow Grant County to
enhance amaction af new industrial businesses by providing a land
bank of suitable indusixial sites in advance of specific proposals to
locate a business in Grant County.
Proponent: Grant County
PO Box 37
Ephrata WA 9�823
Location of Proposal: The four potenrial sites are located within the unincorporated portion of
Grant County, Washington and outside of Urban Growth Areas
designated in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. Site locarions are
generally described as follows:
1. Site A— Wheeler East (1-90 East revised): Includes Sections 15, 21
and 22 and a portion of Secrion 16, all in Township 19 North,
Range 29 East. The site is adjacent to and east of the Moses Lake
UGA, about 1'/z miles north of Inteastate 90. The site is also
divided north and south by O Road, and east and west by Wheeler
Road. The site is also divided by the East Low Canal. The site is
approximately 2,040 acres.
2. Site B—Ephrata Airport North (Rocky Ford revrsed): Includes
portions of Secrions 1, 2 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 26
East and portions of Secrian 6 and 7, Township 21 North, Range
27 East. The site abuts and lies to the northeast of the Ephrata
UGA. `fhe site is bounded to the west by the Burlington Northern
Railroad and to the east by State Route 17. The site is
approximately 1,560 acres.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: Includes portions of Sections 29, 30 and
32, Township l9 North, Range 24 East. The site abuts and lies to
the northeast of the George UGA. The site is divided by Beverly
Burke Road and I 90, which divides the southeast portion of the
site. The site is approximately 520 acres.
4. Site D— Martin: Inciudes portions of Secrions 9 and 10, Township
20 North, Range 24 East. The site abuts and lies to the east of the
Quincy UGA. The site is bounded on the west by Road P, and is
divided by the West Canal. The site is bounded on the west by
Road 11 NW, on the south by State Route 28, and is divided by
Road O. The site is immediately adjacent to industnal property
within the Quincy UGA. The site is approximately 580 acres.
DN5
� � � Lead Agency:
Cxrant Counry, Grant County Coun House, P.�. Box 37, Ephrata,
WA 98823,
The lead agency for this proposal has determined tflat it daes not hava a prabable significant adverse
impact an the environment. An Envirozimental Imgact Statement {EIS} is nat required under RCW
43.21C.Q30 (2} (c). The decision was made after review of a completed checklisC and other inforrnation
on file with the lead agency. This information is available ko the public upon request.
There is a comment period foz this DNS. Tliis DN5 is issued under WAC i97-11-344{2}; the lead
agency wilt nat act an t3iis proposal far 15 days fram the date beinw. Comments must be submitted
by: Decembez� 27, 1999 to the Respc�nsibie flfiicial.
�ursuant to WAC 197-11-340 (2fl, the SEPA Respansible Official may reconsider the I7NS based upan
timely commnents and may retain, oz modify the DNS, or if the Responsible Officiai determines that a
significant advsrse impact is iikely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents. If a DNS is modified,
the lead ageztcy wiil s�nd the modified DNS to agencies with jurisdiction.
Responsibie Officiai: Peter Comenzo, Date: De�eml�er 10, 1999
Seniar Planner "' °'
Grant County Planning Deparzment
P.O. Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98837 Signature: Peter Cornenzo
Phone: (509) '754-2011
R �ai� ora��:�
Appeal�: You may appeal this deternunation to the Board of Grant Caunty Commissioners iacated at
The Grant County Court House, P.O. Box 37, Eghrata, Washingtan no later than 3an i0, 2040 by
written notice of appeai pursuant to the requirements af the Grant Caunty SE�A Ordinance.
You should be prepared to make specifio factual objecdons. Contact the Responsible Offzciat to read or
ask abnut the procedures for S�PA appealsa
Pubiish: Colvmbia Basin Heratd
Grant County Journal
Royal Review
Cnulee City News-Standaed
Grand Coutee Star
Tri-City Heraid
Quiacy Post Register
Wonatchee World
DNS
Decctnb�r
1?ecember
December
Decetnber
December
December
December
i7ecember
i0,
13.
15,
15,
t5,
i3,
16,
13,
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
�.
�.
EIVVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Pccrpose ofchecklist:
The State Environmentai Poiicy Act tSEPA), chapter �3.21C RCW, requires all governmental a�encies to consider
the enviranmental 'zmpacts af a pxopasal befare maicin� deczsians. An environmentai 'tmpact statement (EIS} must be
prepared for ail praposals with probabie sig�iiicant adverse impacts on the quality af the envzrotunent. The puYpose
of this checklist is to provide infarmatian to help you and the agency identify impacts from yotu propasal (and ta
reduce or avoid irnpacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
Instructions, for applicants:
This environmental checktist asks you ta describe some basic inforznatian about yauz propasai. Gavernmental
agencies use this checiclist to . deterniine wheti�er the environmental irnpacts of yaur prapasal are siguificaut,
requiring prepararion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the mast precise infanmarian known, or give the
best descriprion you can.
Yau must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should
be abie to answer the quesrions from your own observations ar project plans without the need to hire experts. If you
realiy do not know the answer, ar if a question does not appiy ta yaur propasai, write "da not knaw" or "daes not
apply." Campfete answers to the c{uestions naw may avaid unnecessary delays later.
Some quesrions ask about' gavernmental regularions, such as zoning, shoreline, and landrnark designarions. Answer
these quesrions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The eheckiist questions apply to aiI parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them aver a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any addirianal information that wiil help describe your propasal ar its
enviranrnentai effects. The agency ta which yau submit this checiclist may ask you to expiain yaur answ$rs or
provide additianal informarian reasanably related to determiniug if there may be significaut adverse impact.
Use vf checklist for nonproject proposads:
The compiete checidist, inciuding the "supplementat sheet for nonproject proposals" (part D), shoutd be cornpieted
faz nanproject propasals {suah as praposals far iand-use designarion or density designarian changes).
For nonprojeci a�tians, the zeferences in zhe checklist to the words "praject," "applicant," and "property or site"
should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respecrively. G�iere a question asks for
informarion that is not perrinent to a nanproject proposal, the question may be answered "does not apply."
A, BACKGRCIUND
1.
2.
3.
Name of propased projeet, if a�plicable:
Grant Caunty Connprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate Master Planned Locarions for Major Industrial
Developrnent
Name of appiicant:
Grant Caunty Degartment of Cammunity I?evelopment, Long Range Planning Division
Address and phone nurnber of applicank and contact person:
Scott Ctark, Deputy Direator
Grant County Community Deveiopment
Lang Range Planning Divisian
P.O. Box 37
35 C Street N.W,
Bphrata, Washington 98823
{509)754-2Q11
Grant Counry G►ecember I999
Mafor Industrial Developments / p�j
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLlST
� �, Date che�icl`zst prepared.
December 6, 1999
5. �gency requesting checklistc
Grant County DepartmenC pf Cammunaty Development
5. Pro�osed timing or schedule (includin� phasing, if appiicable}:
An amendment to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to designate not mors than two master planned
locations for major industriai devetoprnent will be adopted prior to December 31, 2999.
7. Da yoa have any plans far future addikians, expansion, or further activity related to or connecred with
this proposa!? If yes, ezplain.
Yes. The purpose of designatian of rnaster planzied.locarions fax major industrial development as authorized
under the RCW 36.7QA.367 of the Growth Managerneut Act (GMA) is to allow Grant County to enhance
attractian of new industrial businesses by providing a land bank of suitable industriai sites in : advance of
specific proposals ta Iocate a business in Grant County. �
Such designarion of master planned locations for major industrial deveiopment wit2 establish allowabie fuhue
land use within the boundaries of the designated area�s. This acrion may resuit in develapment of lands within
the designated areas far industriai putposes. Such deveiopment rrzay inciude consfixction of infrastructure ta
provide public services, including water, sewer, roadways, elecirical power, rail, or utilities.
Each action of further deveiopment subsequent to designatian of a master pianned iocarian for majar industrial
develupment will be subject to environmental review, as required under the GMA and RCW I97-11-96d.
8s List any environmental information you Icnow about that has been prepared, ar wiil be prepared, �f
directiy reiated to this proposat.
1. Grant Couniy Comprehensive Plan Draft Er�vironmental Impact Statement, Macch 29, i99$, incorporated
herein by re£erence.
2. Cir�t County Camprehensive Plan Fr.nal Environmencal Impact Statement, September 30, 1999,
incotparated hsrezn by reference.
3. Site Seloction Report for Designation of Master Planned Locarions for Majar Industrial„Developmeat,
Deaember G, 1999. : �, .,
4. GMA Compliance Assessment for Designation of Master Planned Locations for Ntajor Industriai
Devslopmen#, December I999.
9. Do you kno�v whether appiications are pending for governmental agprovaIs of other proposais directty
affecting the property covered by your proposat? If yes, eaplain.
No other appiications or approvals reiated to the propert'ses cavered by this proposal are pending.
1Q. List any government approvats or permits that wiii be needed for yoar proposai, if knawno
l. The praposed amendment to the Graut Caunty Comprshensive Plan will be adopt�d by the Grant Counry
Baa�d af Commissioners.
2. Subsequent development of designated lands rnay require governmeatai approvals and permits.
3. The pmposed amendment to the Grant Caunty Camprehensive Plan will be reviewed by the Washiixgton
State Department of Comxnunil7r, Trade and Economic Development.
11. Give brief, compiete descriptian of your prapasat, inctuding th� praposed as+es and the size of the project �
. and site. There are ssveral quesiaons later in this checklist tha# ask you ta describe certain aspec#s of '�,v
�
�rant Counry December 1999
Matjar Industraal Develaprrtents 2 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this
form to include additional specific information on Qroject description.l
The proposed non-project action is an amendment to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to designate not
more than two master planned locations t'or major industrial development as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367 oF the GitiIA. Such designation will allow Grant Counry to enhance attraction of new industrial
businesses by providing a land bank of suitable industrial sites in advance of specific proposals to locate a
business in Grant County.
Under RCW 36.70A.367, Grant County, in consultarion with ciries, is authorized to designate a bank of no
more than two master planned locarions for major industriai developments, such as manufacturing or industrial
businesses, outside of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) that:
• Requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban erowth area; or
• Is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land upon which it is dependent:
or
,• Requires a locarion with characterisrics such as proximity to tzansportation facilities or related industries
such that there is no suitable locarion in an urban growth area.
Although the proposal is a non-project action, it is site-speciiic. Based on a site selecrion process conducted by
a citizens' advisory committee, four sites have been idenrified as potenrially suitable for designarion as a
master planned location for major industrial development, and for which environmental review will be
conducted prior to d�signarion of not more than two sites. All four sites are located outside of Urban Growth
Areas designated in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. The four sites and their sizes are:
1. Site A— Wheeler East; 2,040 acres.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North; 1,560 acres.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke; 520 acres.
4. Site D— Martin; 580 acres.
The site selection report is attached to this environmental checklist.
This proposal does not include phvsical development of any of the sites, but only their designation in the Grant
Counry Comprehensive Plan as master planned locations for major, industrial development. Actions related to
subsequent development will be subject to environmental review, as required under the SEPA rules.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed projeet, iacluding a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If
a proposai would occur over a eange of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a
legal description, site plan,, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. Give the taz
parcel number. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit apptications related to this checklist.
The four potential sites are located within the unincorporated portion of Grant County, Washington and outside
of Urban Growth Areas designated in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. Site locarions are shown in the
attached Figure 1— Site Locations, attached detailed maps for each site, and described as follows:
� 1. Site A— Wheeler East. Includes Sections 15, 21 and 22 and a portion of Section 16, all in Township 19
North, Range 29 East. T'he site is adjacent to and east of the Moses Lake UGA, about 1'/z miles north of
Interstate 90. The site is also divided north and south by O Road, and east and west by Wheeler Road. The
site is also divided by the East Low Canal. •
2. Site B— Ephrata Atrport North: Includes portions of Secrions 1, 2 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 26
East and portions of Section 6 and 7, Township 21 North, Range 27 East. The site abuts and lies to the
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 3 PCI
ENVIROIVMENTA� CH�CKLlST
�- northeast of the Ephrata UGA. "I'he site is bounded to the west by the Buriington itiorthern Railroad and to
the east by State Route 17.
3. Site C- Beverty Burke: Inciudes portions af Sections 24, 34 and 32, Townslup 19 North, Range 24 East. �
The site abuts and lies to the northeast of the George UGA. The site is divided by Beverly Burke Road and
I 90, which divides the snutheast portian of the siCe.
�. Site D-- Martin: Includes portions of Sections 9 and 10, Tawnship 20 North, Range 24 East. The site abuts
and la'es to the east of the Quincy UGA. The site is boundad on the west by Road P, and is diyided by the
West Canai. The site is baunded an the west by Road 11 NW, on the south by State Route 28, and is
divided by Road t}. The site is immediately adjacent to indusizial property within the Quincy UGA and is
predominantly in agriculiural use. �
Site loaations aze as shown on the attached rnap, Figure l. Detailed site maps are alsa attached.
B. ENVIRONMENTA,Ia �LEMENTS
l. Earth
a. General description of the site (circie one): Flat. roiling, hilty, stecp slopes, moun#axnous, other
Site A- Wheeler East; i1at.
Site B- Ephzata Airport Narth; flat.
Site C - �everiy Burke; flat. ,
Si#e D - Martiu; flat>
b. VYhat is the steepest sloQe on the site (approairnate percent slope)?
Site A- Wheeler East; less than 2 percent.
Sitc B- Ephrata Airport North; iess than 2 percent.
Site C- Bevcri}r Burke; less than 2 percent.
Site D- Martia; iess than 2 percent.
c. What general types o[ sails are found o�n the site (for e�ampie, ciay, sand, gravei, peat, muck}? If
you know the classification of agricuiturai soiis, specify them aa�d note any prime farnniand.
1. Site.4 - Whesler East: Wardea sztt loam; porriozks of the site are classified as prime farnsland by the
USDA-SCS `Zaud Evalnatian for Trrigated Croplands of Grant County." ,g
2a Site B- Ephrata Airport North: Malaga sandy loam,, stany to very stony.
3. Site:C- Beverty Burke: Burbank Ioamy iuie sand<
4. Site D- Mr�rtin: Warden siit loa�n; partians of the site are ciassiiied as prime farmland by the USDA-
SCS 66Land Evatuation for irrigated Croplands of Graut County."
Source: Soil Survey of Grani County Washington, C/SDA Soil Conservation Service, 1979.
d. Are theee surface iudications or history of nnstable soiis in the immediate vicinity? If sp, describe.
�
e. Describe the purgose, kype, aad agprozimate quantities of any Clling or grading propased. Indicate
source of till.
�..
Grant County December 1999
Majnr Irtdustrial Developmenis 4 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. Future construcrion of infrastructure improvements to develop
proposed sites may require excavarion and gradine of an undetermined quanrity of material. Future
excavation, grading and construction actions will be evaluated in accordance «�ith the SEPA rules.
Sources of fill and other construcrion materials for future inrrastructure development will be local sand
and gravel pits.
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. Construction activities related to future development on lands
designated as Master Planned Locarions for Major Industnial Development by this action could result in
erosion. The primary cause of soil erosion in Grant County is wind. The suscepribility of any soil type to
erosion depends upon the physical and chemical characterisrics of the soil, in addition to other factors
such as vegetative cover, wind exposure, and velocity of runoff. Erodability varies by site, as follows:
l. Site A— Wheeler East: slightly erodable.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North: not subject to wind erosion.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: very highly erodable.
4. Site D— Martin: slightly erodable.
Source: Soil Survey of Grant Counry Washington, USDA Soil Conservation Service, l979.
g. About what percent'of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction
(for eaampie, asphalt or buildings)?
Does not apply to this non�project action. Future development on lands designated as Master Planned
Locarions for Major Industrial Development by this action are likely to result in crearion of additional
impervious surface, including paved surfaces and buildings. The amounts of impervious surfaces created
by future development will depend upon site- and development-specific design.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. During future construcrion acrivities related to development on
lands designated as Master Planned Locations for Major Industrial Development by this action, the
potenrial for water- and wind-caused erosion will be minimi�ed through the use of temporary and
permanent erosion control measures and Best Management Pracrices to control offsite mi,rarion of silt,
consistent with the requirements of local jurisdicrions and State requirements. Impacts of future
development, if any, will be evaluated in accardance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent
development regulations when proposals for future development are received.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air wouid result from the groposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is comQleted? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Emissions related to davelopment on lands designated as Master Planned Locations for Major Industnal
Development by this acrion are expected to include those typically generated during construction,
including fugirive emissions of particulate matter and engine emissions. Quantiries will vary based on
site size and development activities. Typical engine emissions include, carbon monoxide, sulfizr oxides,
nitrogen oxides, hydrocazbons, and particulates.
Emissions related to operation of industries, once completed, are unlaiown, and will be subject to
environmental review, as required under the SEPA rules.
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Developments ' S PCI
ENVIRONMENTA� CNECKLIST
— ������..��.����-�.�����,
' b. Ars there any off-site saurces of emissions ar odor that mav af£ect your proposal? If sa, generaily
describe.
Na.
c. Proposed tneasures to reduce or controi emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Does not appiy to this nbn-project action.
The Depamnent of Ecaiogy has designated Grant County as currently in attainment for all standards.
Appropriate conixoi measures will be implemented to contral emissions during fitture construction
related to ttus non-project action, subject ta environmental review, as required under the SEPA ruies.
Emissians, if any, related to operation af completed industrial development will be controlled and
monitored as required to ensure that they da not exceed federal and state regutatory standards see by the
Departxnant of Ecology ar other jurisdictional air quality contcoi authority. irnpacts of future
development, if any, wili be evaivated in aceordaace wirh the S�PA rules and ather pertinent
development regularions when proposals for future development are zaceived.
F..; .
Water
a. Surfaces
1} Is there any sarface water bady an ar in the innmediate viciuity of the site (including year-�
rouud and seasona! streams, saitwater, lakes, ponds. �vetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names, If appropriafe, state what stream or river it flaws inta.
l. Site .4 - Wheeler Bast: the East Low Canal divides the site. Several unnamed small ponds, both
intermittent and year-round, exist in Section 22 southwest of the Canal. The ponds drain in:to
e�cisting agzicuiturat drainageways and wasteways. Wetiand azeas are shawn in Figure 2. �'
2. Siie .B - Ephrata Airport Nonh: Ephrata Lake, a natural seeg lake fed by groundwater.
3. S'ite C- Beverfy Burke,• the West Canal divides the site, A smail wetland area is present at the
southern portion af the site as showr� in Figure 4. George Lake and Martha Lake tie to the east
of the site.
4. Site D- Martfn: the West Caaxal divides the site. '"
'The East Low Canal and the West Canal are part of ihe larger Cot�ia Basin irrigatian Praject
supplying irrigatian water ta rnuci� of Grant County. C?ther canals and wasteways serve the irrigatsd
croplan,ds of the Columbia Basin Proj�ct.
Saurce; Nationad Wetland Inventary maps maantuined 6y f:.rant County Current Planning
Departntent.
2) Wtlt the project require any woric over, in, o� adjacent tu (within 20Q feet) the described
� waters? �f yes, piease describe and attach avaiiable plans.
Does not appty to this non-project action.
. Thc Couuty will cansider the impacts af industrial development and may require appropriate
mitigation based upon plans, policie�, rules and regulations in sffect at the time af deveiapmetit,
� Impaats of iuture dev�lopment activities, if any, wilt be evalaated in accardance with the SEPA
ruies, thc Grant Caunty Shareline Management Program, Rssource Lands and Critical Aroas
ozdinance, and other pertinant development re�ulations when proposals for future development are �'
Grant County Decemher 1999
Mujor Industr°ta! Developments 6 � PCI
�NYIRONMENTAI� CHECKLiST
received. The County will consider the impacts o#' industrial deveioptnent and may require
apprapriate miti�ation based upon pians, paliczes, ruies and re�lations in effect at the time of
deveiopment.
3) Estimate the amount af fill and dredge maCeriai that �vould be Qlaced in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of �ll materiai.
Does not appiy ta this nan-project actian.
The Caunty will consider tlie irnpacts of industrial develogment and may require appropriate
mitigation based upon plans, policies, rules and regularions in effect at the time of developrnent.
Impacts of future developrnent acriviries, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA
rules, the Grant County Shareline Managem�nt Pragram, Resource Lands and Cri.tical Areas
ardinance, and ather pertinerit development regulations when propasais for future developtnent are
received. Any pxopased filling of watland areas will be reviewed and regulated in accordance with
Army Carps af Engineers, Department af Ecalogy, and lacai regu�atians.
4) '4Vi11 the proposal reqaire surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give generai description.
purpnse, and approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply to this non-project action.
Future industrial deveiopment at the sites designated far major industriai development as a result of
this acrian may require surface water with.drawals or diversions. Sits improvenn.entis for industtial
derreloprneni are iikely to include surface water control systems rasulting in surface water
diversion,
Water suppiy may be required far dri,nking, industrial (pracess), and iue suppressian purposes.
Source of water may be municipai water supgly systems, suzface water withdrawal, ar groundwater
withdrawai. As discussed below, quantities of water required to serve industrial use are highly
variable depending on ths type of indus#ry served.
If municipal or groundwater sources are nat available in sufficient quantity or quality, surface water
saurces rmay be utilized. However, due to iimited surface water supplies in the vicinity of any af the
four potential sites, surface water withdrawal is considered Iimited.
5} Does the gropasal !ie within a 140-year floodplain? If so, nate location on the site plan.
1. Srte A� Wheeler East: Na.
Z. Site B— Ephrata ,4irport North: No.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: Na.
4. Site D— Martin: No.
Source: Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Crant Caunry, Washingtan, FEMA, September 30, 1988.
6} Does the proposai invoive any discharges of waste materiais to surface waters? If sa, describe
ttte type of waste and anticigated vaiucne oi discharge.
Do�s nat apply to th%s non-project action.
Indtistriai sites that may be developed subseqaent to this action typically require dischazge of
wastes, both solid and liquid. Wastewater discharge can vary wideiy depending upon che iype of
Grant Counry Decemher 1999
Major IndusMat Developments 7 PCI
ENVtRt'�NMENTAL Ct�ECKLIST
._��..��.o� �
`� industry. The anticipated flows are difiicult to predict, and treatment and dispasal methods became
more complex as the flow increases. Wastewater flow from warehouse type facilitias th�t occupy a
lat of land, but have relatively few emplayees can be small. But for "wet'° industries such as faod �
processing, the flows can be quite large.
Discharge of wastawater may be ta municipal sewer systems, to an-site treatment systems, or
through sgray applicatian of treated wastewater. Industrial processes tnay also reuse wasiewater.
Discharge, if any, of wastewater to surface waters prnposed by futtue develapmenC related to this
action vvould be treated effluent meeting SeCOriC�SI}�' dISC�I,aTgO standards similaz to mu�icipai
treatment systems, as regulated by tha Deparanent of Ecaiagy. Any such dischazge iviil be
evaluatad in accardance �vith the SEPA ruies, the Grant Caunty Shoreline Management Program,
Resource i,ands and Crificai Areas ordinance, and other pertinent development regulatians.
b. Groand:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or wiii water be discharged ta graund water? Give generai
description, purpose, and approainaate quantities if known. ..,-„
Does nat apply ta this non-praject acrion.
Lndt�.strial sites that may be develaped subsequent to this action may require both withdrawal from
(w�ter supply) and discliarge to (wastewater) groundwater. '
W#hdrawal (Water Supplyj: Water supply may be required for drinicing, industrial (process}, and
ftze suppresszon purposes.
Patable water demands for industrial sites are typically a small percentage of process water and fire �
suppression needs. Water demands for industrial sites are highly variabte, depending upon the type
of indusirial use. Light industrial applicatians such as warehouse distribution centers p�mariiy need
only potable water for sanitary needs. Agriculturai processing piants typicaliy require more than
5,000 gallons per day and may require miilions af gallazas per day. Fire suppression quantiriss az�
typically supplementai ta the patable and pracess needs since it is usually kept in reserve and
pxravided by pumping ar eievated storage. Storage requirements can ran�e from a few hundred
thousand to over one million �a119ns.
'Che Washington State Departxnent of Ecology regulates the quantity of water for ali uses. Water
rights pern�.its are required prior to any beneficial water nse greater than 5,000 gallons per day. Use
of graundwater up to S,OOO�gallons per day for domestic or industrial use is exempted from ttis
Water Righ,t Permit process under RCW.90.44.054.
Source of water may be rnunicipal water supply systems, surface water withdrawal, ox groundwater
withdravval. Municipal water supply systerns exist in the general vicinity of each of the four
potential sites. Municipal water supply may ar may not be made availabie by jurisdictionai
providers. Availability af groundwater in the vicuuty af the sites has not been deterrnined, but it is
expected that groundwater is avaiiahie at each of ttie sites to serve doffiestic uses up to 5,440
gallons per day. Water sys#em deveinpment far industrial applications with demand below 5,000
gallons per day may use graundwatez if quantity and quality is adequate. Larger demands rnay use
surface water withdrawals, if available, or may seek new water rights or transfer of an exiating
water ri�ht.
Ono potential saurce of water for Site B– Ephrata Airport North aan�y be via the Bureau of
Reclamation Cotumbia Basin Project. The Bureau annually withdraws about 30 million gallons af
graetndwater pez day to help prevent iz�tzusion of Project groundwater inta the natural waters of
Saap Lake. Withdrawn water is pumpsd into the West I.ow Canal. During irrigation peziods, the �
wikhdrawn water sugplements Pxoject water. When irrigatioa is not taking place, the water must
�
Grant Coun"—"'"'�" "�' �� December 1999
Mu, jor Inclustrial Developmsnts 8 P�j
ENVIRQNMENTAL CMECKLlS7
srill be discharged to the West Low Canal, making canal maintenance normally perfornn.ed in dry
condirions more difficuit and costty. G�neraliy, the Bureau wauld prefer aiternate use of the
withdrawn water. The Bureau may authorize util'zzatian of same af the withdrawn water for
industriai applications. If rnade available, this pumged G�ater could feasibly be diverted to an
existing surface water body or other starage far itzdustrial use.
Discharge (Wastewaterl� Discharge of wastewater to the groundwater may occur through on-site
septic systems for "dry" industrial appiications having primarily emplayee sanitary needs, Due to
ffaw limitations, on-site systems may noc be suitabie far higher demand, "�vet" industries. Water
discharged ta reeharge groundwater must tneet drinking water quaiity standards. This eould be
acaomplished through advanced treatment systems.
Any withdrawal nf ar discharge to ground water will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA
rules, Deparnnent of Ecology, Deparanent o£ Health, and other pertinent jurisdictional regularions.
2} Descrii�e waste nnateriai that wiii be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or ottier
saurces, if any {for example: Domestic sewage, indnstrial, caniaining the follawing chemica3s
..,; agricultural, etc.). Describe the genera! size of the system, the number of such systerns, the
number of houses to be served {if applicable), or the nuinber of animals or humans the
system(s) are expected to serve.
Does not apply to this non-project action. See abave discussions regaz�ding potentiai discharge of
wastewater from future industrial develapment that may result from this actian.
c. Water runoff (including s�ormwater):
i) Describe khe source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, ,
if a�ny (include quantities, if known). Where wiit this water flow? WiII this water flow into
ott�er waters? If so, describe.
Dt�os not appiy to this non-praject acrion.
Futurre industria! development at the �ites designated for rnajar industrial development as a result af
this action are likely to result in increased storrn water runoff from addirional impervious surfaces.
Site unprovetnents are likely to inciude surface water conuol measures to cantral the quantity and
quatlity of runoff,
2) Coulci waste materiais enter ground or surface waters? If sa, generally deseribe.
Does not apply to this non-praject action.
Future industriat development at the sites designated for major industrial development as a result of
tttis action nnaq result in discharges of wastewater or starmwater to ground or surface waters. See
wastewater discharge discussions above. i.luriug canstruction, siit and ather waste znateriais wiii be
contained using best management practices as may be required by jurisdictianai regulatory
agt:ncies.
Dischazge, if any, of waste m.aterials to surface or ground waters proposed by future development
related to this action will be �valuated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant Couniy
Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands ar�d Critical Areas ordinance, and ather pertinent
develapment regulatians. The County wiii consider the impacts of industrial deveiopment and may
require approgriate mirigation based upon plans, policiss, rules and regulations in effect at the tirne
of development.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or contrul surfsce, ground. and rurioft' water impacts, if anyc
.�_,
Grant Counry December 1999
Majar Industrial Developments 9 pCl
ENV1Rt3NMEiVTAL CN��KLIST
���a
Does not apply to this non-project acrian.
Fukure industrial develapment at the sites designated for major industrial deuelapment as a result of this �
action will emplay appropriate tneasures that coznply with applicabie local, State and federai regulatians
for reducing andlor can�c'olling surface, ground and runoff water impacts. Impacts of future development,
if any, wiil be evaivated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant Caunty Shoreline Management
Program, Resaurce Lands and Crirical Areas ordinance, and other pertinent deveiopment regulations
when propasals for future deveiopznent are received. The County will cansider the impacts of industriai
deveiapment and may require ap�ropriate mitzgarion based upan plans, palicies, rulcs and regulations in
effect at the time of devslopment.
4, Piants
a> Check or circle types af vegetation found on the site, and describe:
deciduaus #ree: aider, mapie, aspen, other
evergreen tre�: �r, cedar, pine, other
shrubs ,,.
gr�ss ,� .
pa�sture
crop or grain
wei so�l �lants. cattail, bu#tercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
w�tter plants: water lily, eetgrass, milfaiI, ather
other types of vegetatio�t
Ths rnajority of Grant Caunty is native rangeland charractezized by shrub-steppe vegetation eomprised mainly �
of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Tke struc9ure af this plant carnrnunity is agen grass with scattered shrubs. Big
sagebrush is the major shrub species. Since the development of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, much af
the County is currently in crop praduatian. ,
Site-specific vegetarian is deseribed belaw.
Site A— Wheeler 8ast: except for that area west of the community of Wheeier, most af t.�e site is currently
vegetated with agriculturai cr�ps. "' ,,;�
2, �i1e B-� Ephrata Airport North: vegetation is predominantly stuub-steppe, sabject to pasi grazing activities.
3. Size C— Beverly Burke: vegetation in portions of the site is irrigated, cultivated crops; a Iarge area is a
feedl�t.
4. Site D– Martin.• except far the sau#hwest portian af the site, the site is curtently vegetated with irrigafed,
cultivated crops.
Additional site analysis to identify piant species will be canducted as part of si#e-sgeciiic development
propasals related to �izture development of any sites dssignated as master planned locations fnr major industrial
development.
be What kind a�td amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Does not apply to this non-project action.
�
Grant Coura —�� ��
t1' December 1999
Major Industrial Uevelopments 1 p PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CH@CKLIST
Future mdustrial development at the sites designated for major industrial development as a result of this action
is likely to result in removal of unlmown quantities of vegetation for site improvements.
c, List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Vo special status plants are expected to occur at any of the sites, as almost all of these lands have been
converced from native plant communities to agncultural use. Although Site B— Ephrata Airport North has not
been converted to agricultural uses, it has been grazed in the past.
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
program, which identifies species that have pnority for protection because of concern for their popularion
status and their sensirivity to habitat alterarion. Priotity habitats are significant for wildlife. Based on PHS
records maintained by the Grant County Current Planning Departrnent, areas of priority habitat and priority
species occurrence are shown on Figures 2 through 5 for each of the potenrial sites.
While this PHS informarion was used in comparing and evaluating the sites for designation as a master
planned locarion for major industrial development, no surveys of the sites were conducted to determine
locarians of special status plants or animals. Due to the presence of prionty habitat or pnority species, areas of
the sites may be considered crirical areas under Grant County Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance.
Cuture development at these sites will be subject to the site analysis and development standards for fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas under that ordinance.
Additional site analysis to identify endangered, threatened, candidate, monitor, sensirive and priority species
will be conducted as part of site-specific development proposals related to future developtnent of any sites
designated as master planned locations for major industrial development. Impacts of future development, if
any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent development regulations when
proposals for fuhue developrnent are received.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native piants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
Does not apply to this non-project action.
Future development related to this acrion may result in modificarions to site plant communities. Impacts of
future development. if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent
development regulations when proposals for future development are received. The County will consider the
impacts of industrial development and may requue appropnate mirigarion based upon plans, policies, rules and
regularions in effect at the time of development. The enforcement of the Grant County Resource Lands and
Critical Areas ordinance to future development of the sites will ensure continuarion of baseline populations for
all endangered, threatened, candidate, monitor, sensitive and priority species.
5. �nimals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site and describe:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish; bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish9 other:
The major plant community in the area of the potential sites is agricultural, which is generally of less
value as habitat to native wiidlife than is native habitats. Agricultural land provides habitat for a few
species, including geese, mallards, northern hartior, ring-necked pheasant, grey partridge, homed lark,
deer mouse, montane vole, badger, and mule deer. The shrub-steppe habitat, dominated by sagebrush,
Grant Countv � December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 11 pCl
ENVIRi�NM�NTAL CHECKI.lST
serves more than 70 species, including the sage sparrow and sage thrasher, Wetiand habztat in the area
provides habitat far znore than 25 species af water#oravl. ,
Additional site analysis to identify endan�ered, threatened, candidate, mozutor, sensirive and priority �
species wiil be conducied as part of site-speci�c developrnent proposals related to future development of
any siCes designated as master planned locarians for major industrial development.
b. List anv threatened or endangered s�ecies known ta be an or near the site.
Priority species occurrences are documented for Site A— Wheeler East and Site C— Beverly Burke, as
shown in Figures 2 and 4.
Additional site analysis to identify endangered> dueutened, candidate, monitar, sensitive and priority
species wiil be canducted as part af site-specific development proposals related to future develapment of
any sites designated as nnastez planned locatians for major indust�i�l devslopment.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, eapdain.
Wildlife migradon routss exist throughaut Grant County. Many species of birds farage arid rest in the
agricultural fields and streamside areas near the proposed sites. Additianai site analysis to idenrify the
location o� migration routes and their reiatianship ta proposed industrial deveiopment will be conducted
as part of site-specifzc development proposais related ta future development of any sites designated as
master planned locations for major industrial development.
de Proposed mea►sures to preserve or �nhance wildlife, if any:
Does not apply to this non-project action.
�uture devetopment related to thzs acrion may result in madiiicaticins ta site plant communities. Impacts
of future development, if any, will be svaivated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertiaent �
devolopment regulatioaas when propasals for future develapmeztt are receivefl. Tlie County will consider
tha impacts af industriai deveiopment and may require appropr,iate mitigation based npon plans, policies,
rules aud regulatians in effect at ttie time of development. The enforcement of the Graut County
Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance to future develapment af the sites will ensure continuation
af baseline poputatio�s far ail endangered, threatened, candidate, monitor, sensirive and priority species>
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. Wbat kinds af energy (electric, natur�l gas, oil, woad stove, solr�r) will be used to meet the
campleted project's energy needs? Describe whether it wiIl be used far heating, manufacturiag, etc.
Does uot apply to this non-project acrion,
Futuxe developrnent related ta ti�is action will result in botii tem�porary and permanent energy
requirements. During construction of futute zmpravements, fuel and eleetricity will be required.
Electrical power, fuel, solar and/or natur�l gas may be required ta servs the needs �f future industrial
develagmsnt.
b. Woutd yaur project affect the potential use af sotar energy by adjacent properties? If so, geaerally
describe.
Doos nat appty to this non-pmject aciion, Future industriai development as a result of this actian is
expected to havs minianal effect on the potential use of solar energy at or near the potential sites.
c. Wliat kinds of energy cnnservation features are included in the pians af thix proposal? List ather
praposed m►easures to reduce or contral energy impacts, if any: �
Grant County L?ecember 1999
Major Industrial Develvpments /� pCj
EN1iIRONMENTAL CHECKLlS'T
Do�s not apply to this non-project acrion.
In selectian of patential sites for designatzon as master planned locarion for maior industrial
devaloprnent, evaivatian criteria included consideration ot the praximity and capacity of naturai gas and
electrical power. A!1 s#rucnues would be bu'rlt in conf'ormance ��ith County building code and state
energy code requirernents.
7, Environmental Health
a. �re there any enviranmentai heaIth hazards, inciuding exposure to taxic chemicals, risk of �re and
explasian, spiit, ar hazardaus waste, that cauid accur as a resuit of this praposai? If sa, describe,
Does not apply to this non-project action.
Future industrial developznent that rnay occur as a result of this actian may use hazaxdous materials ar
potentiai contaminants in industrial appiications or may have sirnitar materials as a waste byproduct. The
type ar amount of such materials cannot be defined at this time,
The potenrial hazards associated with rnaterials used during canstruction will be miri�ated by following
construction safety requirements found in Washington Adrninistrative Code 296-155 and 29 CFR 1926
(OSHA)�
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Daes nat apply to this non-project actian. Bmergency services for the sites are currently pr�vided
through Grant County Fire Districzs. Future industrial deveiopment that may accur as a result of
tkus action will crnploy appropriate measures of eznergency response. Such rneasures could inciude
emergency spill response programs. .
If, duriug the operation of any future facitity devetoped as a resuit of this non-project action, any
substancc iasted in 40 CFR 342 is refeased ta the enviranment, the develaper witl be required to
notify the Nationai Respanse Center, U.S. EPA, and the Washington State Department of Ecolagy
as required nnder Section 101 � 14) of the Comgrehensive environrnental Response Campensation
Liability Ack (CERCLA) and the Model Toxics Contral Act (M'TCA) RCW 7p.lO5D and WAC
173-340.
2} Prapnsed measures to reduce or controi environmentat health hazards, iC any:
Future industrial deveiopmeat, inclnding constructian and operation activities, will employ
appropriate measures that comply with applicable local, State and federal regularions for managing
potential enviranmantal health hazards. Any dangerous wastes generated by future facilities will be
managed by the developer to ensure coznpiiance with the Washington Dangexous Waste Regutation
(WAC 173-303).
Impacts af future develapment, if any, wiil be evaivated in accozdance with the SEPA ruies and
other psrrinent developmeut regulations when prnpasals far future development are recsived. The
County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate znitigation
based upon plans, policies, rules a�d regulations in effeet at the time af development.
b. l�toise
1} What types of noise saist in the area which may affect yaur project (for example� traffic,
squigment, ogeration, other)2
None.
Crant Counry December 1999
Major Industriul Developmenrs 13 pCl
E�IVIf20NMENTAt� GHECKLIST
� ..,
2) dVhat types and teveis of noise wouid be created by or assaciated with the project on a short-
term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, ather)? Indicate what
hours noiss would come from the site. �
Does nat apply to this non-project actian.
Future industrial development that may occur as a result of ttzis action m.ay generate additional
noise from aperating eauipment durin� construction of infrastructure and facilities. Construction
activitiss would be temporary in nature and are anrioipated to occur during normal daytime working
hours. Noise may also be generated during operarion of fuiure ixzdustrial deveiopmenr. The levei,
frequency and duration af such nozse cannpt be fuliy deimed at this time.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Daes not apply to this nan-praject action.
Fu#ure industrial develapment will employ apprapriate measures that cornpiy with applicable local,
State and federal regulatians far cantraiting noise. Impacts af fizture develapment, i£ any, will be
evaluated in accordanae with the SEFA rules and other perrinent d.evelopment regulations whet�
groposals far fuiure development are received. The Cownty will consider tixe impacts of industrial
development and may require appropriate mirigarian based upon plaas, paiicies, rules and
regulations in effect at the rime of development.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. Wttat is the current use of the site and adjacent prnperties?
The daminant land uses in Gratit County are agricultur�, rangeland, publ'xa lands, and open space. Other
land uses include nual residenrial, industrial and cammercial. Site-specific land uses are as follows: �
l. Site .4 — Wheeler East; current land uses within the boundary include industrial and irrigated
agriculture. Adjacent pz�operties include those in agricultural and industzial use. Altliough zoned as
industrial, the comtnunity of Wheelsr is a mix of commerciai and residentiat use.
2. Site B— Ephratca Airpore Nor°th: land within the boundary is currently vacant and unimproved.
Adjacent praperties iriclude the Ephrata Airport I�Iorth (a General Aviation facility}, vacant,
unimproved land, and rangeland.
3. Site C-� Beverly Burke: current land uses withiz� the baundazy include a feedlot, irrigated agriculture,
and small paxcels of industriat and commercial. Adjacent propertics include agxicultural, residential
and cozrunerciat areas in tho Tawn of George UGA, and vacant, unimpmved iand,
4. Site D— Murtin: current laud use within the boundary is entirely inrigated agriculture, Adjacent
praperties include those in agricultural and indusirial use (within tha City af Ephrata UGA},
b. Has the site been used far a�ricuitare? If sa, describe.
1. Site A— Wheeler East: except for the commtunity of Wheeler and land lying to the west of the
commuuity, this site is ar was in cultivated agricuttural uss siac� the Calumbia Basin Project was
completed, That portian of the site lying west of the East Law Canal is within the First Half of the
Columbia Basin Project and is currently irrigated. A varieiy of crops have been grawn an a seasonal
basis, inciudi�ag potatoes and sagar beets. 'I'hat partion af the site lying east af the East Low Canal is
within the proposed Second Half af the Columbia Basin Projec� Po`rtions af this area az� irrigated. A
varisty of cxops hav+� b�eix grown on a seasonat basis, including vegetables, small grains, and forage
crops.
�
Grant County December l999
Major Industriad Develv,nments 14 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CNECI(LIST
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North; Portions of the site have historically been used for grazing, but not
culrivated crops.
�. Site C— Beverlv Bt�rke: portions of the site are currently used for cultivated crops, primanly
vegetables and forage crops.
�4, Site D— rLfartin: the site is currently in cultivated agricultural use. A variety of crops have been
grown on a seasonal basis, including vegetables, small grains, and forage crops.
c. Describe anv structures on the site.
A detailed survey of site structures has not been completed. The following generally describe those
structures believed to exist.
1. Site A— Wheeler East: existing structures include the East Low Canal, the Burlington Northern
Railroad, numerous industriallcommercial structures north of Wheeler Road, small farm�related
structures, and irrigarion faciliries. .
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North: There are no structures on the site.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: existing suuctures include the Burke electrical substation, feedlot strucnues,
small farm-related structures, irrigarion facilities, the West Canal, and a few farmhouses.
4. Site D— Martin: existing structures include the West Canal, the Burlington Northern Raikoad, small
faim-related structures, urigation facilities, and a few farmhouses.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply to this non-project action.
Future industrial development may result in structure demolition. Impacts of future development, if any,
will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent development regularions when
proposals for future development are received. The County will consider the impacts of industrial
development and may require appropriate mirigarion based upon plans, policies, rules and regulations in
effect at the time of development.
e. What is the current land-use district classification of the site?
Based on the Grant County Zoning Ordinance, which is based on the 1977 County Comprehensive Plan:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: two areas are zoned "Heavy Industrial"; one area is about 77 acres, the other is
about 192 acres. One 49-acre area is zoned "Light Industnal".
2. Site B— Ephrata Airporr North: one parcel is zoned "Heavy Industrial" and is about 482 acres in size;
one 10-acre parcel is zoned "Suburban — 2". A 40�acre Planned Unit Development also lies within the
boundary.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: two parcels are zoned "Commercial — Freeway Service"; one parcel is zoned
"General Commercial"; one pazcel is zoned "Light Industrial"; the remainder is zoned "Agriculture".
The Light Industrial parcel is 9.9 acres. The Commercial — Freeway Service parcels are 1.4 and 41.6
acres in size. The General Comtnercial parcel is 7.4 acres.
4. Site D — Martin: "Agriculture".
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Grant Counry � December l999
Major Industrial Developments 1 S PCI
ENVIFtONMENTAL CHECK�IST
Based on the Grant County Compreliensive Ptan adopted in Septembez° i999:
1. Si#e.4 — YYheeler East: the areas are zoned "Heavy Industrisl" and "Light Industrial" are designated as �
"Industrial" in the Comprehensive Pian. The remainder of the site is designated as "Imigated
Agriculttue.,'
2, Site B— Ephrata Airport North: the areas zoned "Heavy Industriai" are designated "Industriai." The
area zaned "Suburban — 2" is designated "Rural Residential 2." The area sauth and east of the
Industrial area is designated as "Rura! Remate." The rernainder of the area is designated as "Rural
Residenrial I."
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: the areas zaned "Commercial — Freeway Service" and "General Comrnercial"
are designated as "Commercial" in the Comprehensive Plan. T'he area zoned "Light Industrial'" is
designated as "Industrial." The remainder is designated as "Irrigated Agricuituce." '
4. Site D— Martin.� "Th� enti.rs�azea is designated as `°Irrigated Agriculture."
g. If appiicaiate, what is the current shore3ine master program designatian of the site? ._.:..
.,,.,-..
None of the site are currently within 200 feet of a designated shoreline in the shoreline master program.
h. Has any part �f the site beea ciassi�ed as an �°environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specifv.
No physical surveys have been conducted of tixe sites ta examine for the presence of envaranmentally
sensitive areas. However, based on review of mapping maintained by the Grant County Cumeut Planning
Deparunent, portions of each site are expected to contain areas that would be designated as "critical
areas" und$r the Grant County Resource Land and Critical Areas Ordinance. Critical areas ine�ade
wetlands and fsh and wildlife Pniority Habitat and Frionity Species Occurrence areas. Based on records _
maintaine@ by the Grant County Current Planning Department, patential crirical azeas are shown o� �
Figures 2 thraugh 5 for each of the potential sites.
The Wastaington State Department of Fish and Wildtife manages the Priority Habitat and Sp�cies (PHS)
pxogra�rr, which identifies species that have priarity for protection because of concern for their population
status and their sensitivity to habitat alteration. Priority habitats are significant for wiidiife.
While this PHS informa�ion t�vas ussd in cornparing and evaluating the sites for designatio� as a mast�r
planned location for major industrial development, no surveys of the sites were conducted to detertnine
locarions of special status plants or animals. Due to the presence of priority habitat-pz,;prioriry species,
arcas af the sites may be considered criticai aroas under Grant Couuty Resource Lands and Critical Areas
ardinance. Future developmez�t at thsso sites will bs subject to the sits analysis and deveiapment
standards for %sh and wildli#'e habitst conscrvatian areas under that ordinance, Impacts of futtue
development, if any, wiil be evaluat�d in accordance with the SEPA rules azad other pertinent
devs3opment regulatians when groposals for futurs develogment az� received.
Additional site attalysis t� identify czitical areas wiit be canducted as part of site�specific dev�lopmsnt
propasais related to futute develapment of any sites designated as mastsr planned locations fox major
industrial development.
i. Approaimatety how many people wouid reside pr work in the completed proyect?
The current p�gulation within the faur poten#iai sites for designation as at master planned lacarion far
major industrial development is unknawn, but expect�d ia be very iow. Future residential development
within designated sites would be restricted ta very low density or pralubited, Tha levet of workar
population cannot be detsrmined at this time, and may vary considerably based oa the type of industry
developed. Typical worker papulation for industrial sites as pubtished in reference texts varies fram 5 to �
IS persans per acre, t
�
Grant County , December 1999
Mc{for Industrial Developments 1� PCI
E�lVlFtQNMENTAL. CHEC!{LlST
.-�pproximateiy how many people wouid the completed project displa�e?
This non-praject action will nat directiy result in dispiacements. Fuiure industrial deveiopment tnay
resuit in acquisitian of unknown quantities af habitable land and displacement af some residences.
Conversion of agricultural land ta industrial usa would also result in some displacement af farmworkers,
but a net increase in employment is expected.
k. Proposed cneasures to avoid or reduce dispiacement impacts, if any:
This non-praject acrion wiil not diractiy result in displacements. Sites have been idenriiied and evaluated
based partialiy an their miz�imai impacts to existing residential deveioprnent. Por the most part, the
potential sites are not currently occupied.
The impact of future industrial devalopment on displacement can be min;T,,;�ed ta.y devetopmant on
uninhabited portions of the designated master pianned tocatians for major industrial develapznent.
Impacts of future deveiopment, if any, wiii be evaluated in accardance with the SEPA rules and ather
pertinent deveiopment reguiatians when proposals for future develapment are received. The County will
consider the imgacts of izYdustrial development and may require appropriate mirigatian based upon plans,
policies, r�les and regulations in effect at the time of development.
Froposed tneasures to ensure the proposai is compatible with esisting and projected iand uses and
pians, if any:
Sites have been iden�ed and evaluated based• partiaily on their cansfstency and compatibiiity with site
and adjacent tand uses and Camgrehensive Pla� designatians.
Designation of master planned locarians for major industrial development recagnizes the County's nsed
%x industrial lands and its associated property tax revenu� #'or iong term viability of service provision.
Designatian is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.3b7. Site development and design
requirements witt ensure that:
1. Buffers ars provided between the rnajor industrial development and adjacent nanurban areas;
2. Development regul�tions are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent
nonurban areas;
3. Pravisian is made to mirigate adverse .impacts an designated agriculturai lands. farest iands, and
mir�eral resaurce lands; and
4, The plaa for major industrial development is consistent with the County's development regulations
established for protecrion of critical azeas.
Impacts of fitfiue deveioprnent, if any, witi be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA ruies and other
pertinent developmeat reguiatians when proposais far future development are received. The Caunty will
eonsider the iaripacts af industriai development and may require appropriate rnirigation based upon plans,
policies, rules and regulations in effect at the tirne of development.
9. Housing
a. Approaitnakely how many units wouid be provide@, if any? Indicate whether hfgh, middte, or low-
incame hausing.
I�o hausing would be provided as a direct result of this non-project action. Future industrial developrment
may result in a cumulative total estimate of 18,317 new jobs (See Itern 15 — Public Services for
discussion). Applying an in-migrarion factor of 50% results in 9,158 new residents to Grant County.
Based on a househotd size af 2.74 persons per househoid (1990 US Census far all of Grant County},
Grant Counry L3ecemher 1999
Major Industrial Developments 17 ' PCI
�ldViRCiNMENTAL CHECKLIST
- � there would be a need for 3,342 new residences to accommodate the projected in-migration to the
County.
b. Approsimately haw many units, if any, wouid be eliznir�ated? Indicate whether high, middle, or �
Iaw-ir�corne i�oe�siag.
This non-project action will not duectly result in displacements. Sites have been idenrifzed and evaluated
based partially on their minitnal impacts to existing rasidential development. For tk�e nnost part, the
potential sites include few residential units.
The impact of future industriai deveiopment on any existing hausing units is unknawn, but will be
evaluated at the time of devel�pment. The impact of future industrial dsvelopment on existing housing
can be minimized by devslopment on uniziliabited portions of the designated master planned lacarions far
major industrial development.
c, Propased measures to reduce or conirol hoasing impacts, if anyt
Does not apply to this nan-project action.
The impact of future i�.dustrial development is not expected to have a significant impa�t on hausing. Few
houscs are located on or near the poteatial sites. There are no exisring housing waits on or adjacent �o Site
D— Martin. Site A— Wheeler East is located nearby the cammunity of Wheeler which has several
resid�ntiai housiag units. Site B a Ephrata, Airport North fs iocated immediately sauth of the residential
coanm�nity of Grant Orchards. Site C— Beveriy �urke cantains one �Zc�using unit and is nearby the Town
of George which has residentiai units.
Adequate housing for population in-migration resulting from future industrial development is expected to
bc accommadated by existing and new dwelling units in both Che rurai and urban growth areas designated
for residenkial development. Adequate lands have been designated in fihe Gran,t Caunty Comprehensive �
Plan to aocommodate the potentiai 3,342 new hauses estimated to result from future industriai
developtnent. 'ihe combined hausing capacity af both rurai and urban growth area residential lands is
26,682 houses; new hausing required based on papulation projectigns is 11,883. Thi.s excess residential
land capacity ec}ual to i4,799 dwelling units, mor� than enough to accommodate the required additionai
3,342 houses due to industrial develo�ment.
Designarion of an area as a nnaster planned location for major industriai devela�tnent wiii resuit in
developtnent regulations that prahibit or minimize the potentfai faz future residenrial develgpment.
Deveiopment reguiations are alsa expected to impose site design and development standards> including
buffer requiremeuts, intended to muumize the im�acts ta adjacent residential areas.
Irngac#s �f firturc development, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other
pertinent developxnent regularions when proposals for fizture development are reoeived. The Couniy will
consider tl�e impacts of industriat development and may require appropriate mitigaiion based upon pians,
policies, rules and regulations in e£fect at the time of development.
10. Aestheti�s
a. VYltat is the tallest height of any proposed stracture(s), not inctuding antennas; what is thc
principal e�terior building material(s) proposed?
Does not appty to this non-project action.
Naw st�ructures wiii l�cely be constructed as a result of this acti�n. Design detaiis will not be known until
specific development �xoposals are received.
b. W6At views in the iinmediate vicinfty wauid be altered or obstructed? �
.,,�_.� - -
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 18 , p�j
ENVIRONM�NTAL CHECKLlST
�.e.�,� ����� ���..�..
'I'Fxe impact on views wiii not be known until specific development pxoposais are received. However, in
selectian of potenrial sites Tor designatian as rnaster planneci iocation for majar industrtai development,
evaivation critezia included cansideratian of the impact on views oi neighborzng urban a�d rural lands.
Planrings, fcnces and berrns to screen and secure future industrial development may alter views in the
immediate vicinity of the sites.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or controi aesthetic impacts, if any:
�Iew facilfty designs wili incorparate apprapriate measures ta reduce or cantrol aesthetic impacts, as
required by jurisdictionai agencies, Impacts af -future developmen� if any, will be evaluated in
accordance with the SEPA rules and other peninent development re�ulatinns when propasals for future
development are received. Thc; County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may
require appropriate mirigatian based upon plans, policies, rules and reguiations in effect at the time af
develapment.
1l. Ligl�t and Giare
a. i'Vhat type of light ar giare will the proposal produce? Whak time of day would it mainly occur?
Does not apply to this non-project actzon. New sources of light and glare from tuture industriai
developznent that may accur as a resalt of this action wili be identified when speci�c deveiopment
proposats are received. Typical sources assaciated with industriai deveiopment inciude general outdoor
iiluminadon in operating areas, stairs and piatforms, roadways, parking areas, and storage areas.
b. Could light or glare from the finislied pro,ject be a safety haaard or interfere with views?
Does not apply to this non-proje�t action. New sources of light and glare fronn fuhue industrial
developtnent that may occur as a result af this action witZ be identified when specific deveiopment
proposals are recaived. Light and glare impacts are expected to be rninimal. Because of the reiarively flat
togography of the sites, sonne lights may be seen by distant or elevated viewers, but impacts caused by
lighting, if any, are expected to be negligible.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposai?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or cotatra! light and glare irnpacts. if any:
Does not apply to this non-project acrion.
New facility designs will incarpozate appropriate nneasures to reduce or controt light and glare impacts,
as required by jurasdictional agencies. Measures aould include tha use of nonref2ective paints, adjustiug
Iight directions, and the use of screening devices such as plantings and berms.
Imp�cCs, if any, will be evaluated in ac�ordance with the SEPA rules and other perrinent davelopment
regulations. The County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate
mitigation based upon plans, policies, rules and regulations in effect at the rime af devetoprnent.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and infarma! recreational appartunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Therc are na designated recreational opportunities on any of tlie four potenrial sites, Na parks ar
recreationai facilities are within one mile of Site A— Wheeler East or Site B— Ephrata Airport Nvrth.
Grant Countv December 1999
Major Industriat Developments j�i pC;[
�NVIRflNMENTAL CliECKLlST
�� There is o�e park, Town Park/Community Hall Park within one mile of Site C- Beveriy Burke.
Facilitites inciuda playground equipment, picnic tabies and a stage.
There are severai parics within the Ciiy af Quin.cy that are within one mile ot Site I7 -1Vlartin., including
East Park, Quincy South Park. McConnel Park, (�uincy Notth Park, and Reservoir Park. Facilities are
described in the City of Quincy Comprehensive Plan, 19�6-2016, adopted March 1996.
b. `Vould the proposed project dispIace any existing recreationai uses? Ii so, describe.
Na.
c. Proposed measares ta reduce or control xm�acts on recreation, including recreation opportunities
to be provided by the �roject or applicant, ii any:
Nat applxcable to this non-project action.
13. Histaric and Cuitural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national. state. or local preservatian
registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No detailed field surveys were conducted as part of this aon-praject acrion. Grant County has a rich
cultural heritaga, and ma�y sigaificant cuitural resources are found throughaut the Cc�unty.
Based on data obtained from the Washington State Office of Archaealogy and Historic Preservarion
{QAHP), Grant Cauniy maintains a map showing sections of land that may contain significant culhxrai
resources. Actuai locarian of such resowrces within a particular sectian are not mapped, but mtast be
detertnixaed through d�tailed site archaeotogicat analysis and consultation with OAHP and tribal agencies.
Based on review of mapping maintained by the Grant County Current Planning Deparsment, no histaric �..
ar cult�uai resaurces are �xpected ta be present on any af the four potential sites. Cultrxral sites are .
expected to occur witl�i�t five miles of Site C- Beverly Burke and Site B- Ephrata Airport North.
Additional site analysis to identify cultural and historic resources wiii be conducted as part af site�
specific development proposals retated ta future deveioptnent of any sites designated as master planned
locatioi.�s for major iIIdustriai develapment. in additian, Grant Cous�ty intends ta deveiog a Culhual
Resouree Lands Map and I3atabase as part af its ongoing camprehensive pianning effQrts. The map and
database wiil be deveioped through assistance af a Cultuzal Resource Task Force camp�$ed of citizens,
Wanapum Band of Incli.ans, OAI�', DNR., Grant County PUD and others. �
b. Generaily describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeoiogical, scientific, ar caitural
import�nce know� to be aa or nezt to the site.
N� detaiied �eld surveys were condacted as part of this nan-project actioa. Laudmarks and evidence of
historioai and culiurai significance exist within Grant County. Adslitional site analysis to identify cultural
and histaric resources will be conducted as part of site-specific development proposals related to future
developznent of any sites designated as nnaster planned locarions for major industrial development.
c. Propased measures to reduee or cantroi impaci:s, if any:
'This nan-praject actian is not ex�ected ta impact cultural or historical resources. Future industnal
development ihat may result from chis noa-project actian is also not expected to irnpact suah resources.
Aflditionai site analysis ko identify oultru�al and historic resaurces will be canducted as part of site-
specxfic development proposals related to future development of any sites designated as master planged
la�ations for major industrial deveiapmente �
Grant County —� December 1999
Major IndustriaX Dervelopments 20 P�1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Impacts of future development activit�es, if any, will be evaluated m accordance with the SEPA rules, the
Grant County Shoreline Management Program, Rasource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, and other
pertinent development regularions when proposals for future development are •received. The Countv will
consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate mitigarion based upon plans,
policies, rules and regulations in effect at the rime of development.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proQosed access to the existing
street system. Show on site plans. if any.
A comprehensive inventory of County transportarion facilities is provided in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan/EIS. Figure 6, attached, shows the transportarion network serving Grant County and
existing 1998 traffic volumes. Access routes serving the sites are as follows:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: is served by the following County roads: Wheeler Road, O Road, P Road,
Road 2 and Road 4. SR 17 can be accessed west along Wheeler Road. I 90 can be accessed south
along O Road.
2. Site B-- Ephrata Airport North: is served by SR 17 along the eastern border. SR 28 can be accessed
to the north along SR 17; SR 282 can be accessed to the south along SR 17. I 90 can be accessed
along SR 283 to the southwest or SR 17 to the southeast,
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: is served by I 90 in the southeast portion of the site and by Beverly Burke
Road/SR 281.
4. Stte D— Martin: is served by County Road 10.5 NW along the northern border; County Road O runs
through the site. SR 28 nuis along the sou�h border. I 90 can be accessed by taking SR 28 west to SR
281, then south to access near George.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approaimate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
Public transit is provided through the Grant Transit Authority. None of the sites are currently served
directly by public transit, since the sites are predominantly undeveloped. Public transit does not serve the
Quincy area; therefore, no service is available near Site D— Martin. Service is provided to George,
Ephrata, Moses Lake' and Warden; service is also provided north to Grand Coulee. Therefore, service is
provided to within one mile of Site A— Wheeler East, Site B— Ephrata Airport North, and Site C—
Beverly Burke.
c. How many parking spaces woutd the completed project have? How many would the project
eliminate? �
No pazking spaces will be created by the proposed non-project action.
Future industrial development that may result from this non-project acrion will be required to provide
adequate parking to serve employee, visitor and other parking needs in accordance with Grant County
zoning requirements.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to eaisting roads or streets,
not includiag driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
Not applicable to this non-project action. However, future development at the sites is expected to require
roadway improvements.
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Develnpments 21 PCI
ENV1ROfdMENTA� CMECiCL3ST
� Each of the sites are adequately served by State Routes and Counry arterials havi,ng adaquate capacity.
WhilE no new roads are anticipated, futlu�e development cnay require improvements to existing raads
depending upon the types o�` industrial develapment. Impravements cauld inciude inerease in pavement �
width, shauic3ez widening, and structurai improvements to provide capacity ta accammodate industzial
ioads for a majar industriai facility.
Level of Service (LOS) is a classiixcation used to describe the capacity of a transportarion facility. Tkiis
measureznent compares the number of vehicles using the facility with the maximum numbeX of vehicles
the facility is designed to accommodate under prevailing conditions and is expressed by gzades from "A"
thxough "F". LOS A is the best, ar free flowing; LOS F is the worst, ar cangested. Level of Service
(LOS} standards for major Caunty raadways are established in the Grant County Cornprehensive
PlanlEIS, LOS standards for state routes are idenrified in the Quad Caunty Regional Transportation P1an.
'The present traffic conditions on roads serving the sites is LOS A.
The GMA and the Grant County Comprehensive P1anIEIS require that new devetopment be prohibited
unless transportation imprvvennents to accommodate the impacts af deveiopment or fiuiding strategzes
far such impravemen,ts are made concurrent with the developrnent ar will be financially planued to be in
piace within six years. If proposed development is expseted to decrease LOS be1Qw adopted standards,
transportatian improvernents must be made. Development must provide mitigarion of off-site traffic
impaczs,
Based on the estirnated trips generated far each site as shown in Tabie 2 below, the fotlowing irnpacts arc
expected:
Wheeler Road west of Site A— Wheeier East may have structural deiiciencies due to high industrial truck
loadings.
1. S'ite A— Wheeler East: an additional 16,320 trips per day would result in a total average daily trips in
sxcess of 21,000 on Wlxeeler Road in ZOt8, resulting in LOS F based an current capacity. Portions of �
Wheeler Road wilt need to be upgraded to principai arterial standards to accammadate estimated
traffic. Improvements may also be requzred to O Road NE, althaugh current traffic is very low at
about i,fl04 trigs per day. Improvements may aiso be required to SR 17 south.of Whesler Road.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North: an addirional 12,480 trips per day wouid result in a total average
dai.ly trips in excess of 16,490 on SR.17 in 2018, resulting in L08 B whi►ch exceeds established LOS
standards. No irnprovements appear to be required. Traffic inereases at the intersection af SR 1'7 and
Stratford Road wonld also be experienced due to travel from the site east ta Moses. Lake and on to I
90. Based on anticipated capacity, the 20I8 LC1S should remai� at LC?S A. ,,,�d;.,
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: an additiana14,16Q trips per day would result un a total average ciaily trips in
excess of 5,000 on Beverly Burke Road_in 2018, resulting in I.OS A, No innprovements appear to be
required.
4. Site D— Martin: an additionat 4,G40 trips per day wouid resuit in a total average daiiy trips in excess
of 9,490 on SR 28 and 11,8A0 an SR 281 in 2018, resulting in LOS A on both routes. No
improvemeat� appear ta be required,
Because twa sitss may be designated as rnaster plann�d locations for majar industnal development, the
irnpacts of trafiic rnust be evaluated on a eumulative basis. White the transportatinn sYstem and imPacts
far most cambinations af sites are aelativety iadependent, the designatian af both Site A— Whesler East
and Site B— Ephtata Airport Narth cotttd have a higher eumulative impact than each site independently,
parti�u3azly on SR 17.
Impacts of future development activities, if any, will be evaluated in accordance witii the SEPA rules, the
Grant County Comprehensive Plan, and other pertinent development regulaiions when proposals for �
future development are received. The Cou�ty will consider the impacts of industriat deveiopment on
Grar�t County ��� December 1999
Majnr Industria! Developmen�s 22 �'��
ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST
traffic and transportation improvements and may require appropriate mitigariun based upon plans,
policies, rules and regularions in effect at the time of development.
e. �Vill the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity o� water, rail, or air transportation? If so,
generally descriioe.
;�1ot applicable to this non-project action.
Table 1 '
Industria! Analysis
Gross
Area No. of Employees
Site Company Location Product (Acres)� Employees' Pe�Acre
1 Carnarion/Nestle Wheeler East Potatoes 34.42 450 13.1
2 ASMI Wheeler East Polysilicon 81.46 400 4.9
3 Basin Frozen Foods Warden Potatoes '1.32 180 24.6
4 Warden Produce Warden Potatoes 12.89 65 5.0
5 Pacific NW Sugar Wheeler Sugar 179.41 100 0.6
6 `Vashington Potato Warden Potatoes 3.86 150 20.5
' Skone & Conners Warden Potatoes 10.29 100 13.7
8 Columbia Foods Quincy Vegetables 37.37 250 6.7
9 JF2 Simplot Quincy Potatoes 53.17 600 11.3
10 Lamb Westin Quincy Potatoes 18.7 450 24.1
11 Inflarion Systems, Inc. Airport 100 490 4.9
12 Willamette Industries Wheeler Corrugated 19.7 100 5.1
13 EK�► Chemicals Wheeler Sodium chlorate 17.83 45 2.5
Totals 576.42 3,430 6.0
Industnal Land Use Database and GIS Mapping, 1998 Economic Profile of Grant County, Chase Economics &
Reed Hansen & Associates .
' Source: Washington Manufacturers Ragistry, 1998
Import of raw materials and export of fmished products are typical requirements of industrial pzocesses.
Transport of freight, materials and goods will likely be performed in the most economical manner, and
may include a combinarion of water, rail, road and air transportarion. The most predominate mode of
freight transport in Grant County is via surface roads; truck-rail mode is used in parts of Grant County.
Sites were idenriiied and evaluated partly based on their proximity to rail and air transportation faciliries.
Use of rail mode is expected to be high for Site D- Martin, Site A- Wheeler East, and Site B- Ephrata
Airport North. No rail is available to Site C- Beverly Burke.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Not applicable to this non-project action.
Future industrial development will result in vehicular trips. Trip generarion can be highly variable
depending on the type of industry. Based on data from the Institute of Traffic Engineering Trip
Generarion Manual, vehicle trips range from 2.1 �ips per employee for manufacturing facilities to 3.34
trips per employee for industrial parks.
The number of employees is also highly variable depending on the type of industry. Typical worker
population for industrial sites as published in reference texts varies from 5 to 15 persons per acre. Based
on a land needs analysis prepared for Lewis County (Hovee, 1997) a value of 4.5 persons per acre was
used as a basis for industrial land needs. Based on an analysis of thirteen industrial operations in Grant
County (See Table 1), a total of 576 acres were used to employ 3,430 employees, an average of 6.0
Grant County December 1999
Major lndustrial Developments 23 PCI
ENl/IRONMENTAI. CHECKLIST
empioyees per acra. Based on 3.34 trips pex emp�oyee and 6.4 emplayees per acre, a total of ZO,Q trips
per acre are estimated. Based on 20 trips per acre, the following trip generation is esrimated for each site:
Table 2
Estimated Trip Generation
�
Net
� Gross .developable Estimured
Area Area� Trips/ Daity
Site rYame (Acwes� (Acres) Acre Tripsz
A Wheeler East 2,040 $16 20 16,320
B Ephrata Airport 1,560 624 20 12,480
North
C F3everly Burke 520 208 20 4,160
U Martin 580 232 20 4,64}0
'Net deveiopabie area catcuiated as aQ°lo of gross area.
Z�st'smated daily Mps equals Net Developab(e Area multiplied by ZO trips/acre.
Most likely, industriai land tenants will develop capita! intensive industries that will operate 20 to 24
hours per day with mulriple work shifts. Whils the daily iraffic levels will be within. the ran�es described,
the peak-hour votumes will be reduced on iocal and regional transpartation faciiities because of wark
shift starting times occuzring during off-peak hours.
g. Proposed measures to ceduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
No mitig�tion required based on this nan-praject acrion. However, fizture developrnent may require
improvernents ta raads, depending upon site-speciiic condirions and the nature and size of the propased
facilities. Traffic demand management pracrices that tnay ba xeqnired include encauraging industries to
operate on a muiiipie-siuft basis, develop ride-share incentives, use public transit and park-and-ride
facilities, and ta use the rail mode ta tlie gre�test extent pracricabte, �
Impacts of futura development activit'tes, if any, will be evaluated in accordance wzth the SEPA rules, the
Grant County Compreheusive Ptan, and other pertiusnt developm�nt regulatians when proposals for
futtue development are received. The County will consider the impacts af industrial development on
traffic and transpoxtation and may require appropriate mitigation based upan pians, policies, rules and
raguiatioaa� ian �ffect at the time of deveiopment.
15. Public �ervices
a. Would the project resutt in au increased need for pablic services (for eaamp�e: fire pratection,
police pro#ectian, healtb car�, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
�uture industriai deveiapment as a resuit af thzs non-project action is expected to require additional need
for public services. Cansttuctian activiries necessary to develop infrastructure and site improveznents for
the sites may result in a rninor and temporary increase in the demand placed on pubiic service praviders.
This demand inczease cauld have temporary effect on iocal police and sheriff deparnnents, providers af
emergenoy medical sezvices, and local f�re districts. The temporary constntctian impacts on local schools
would be at mast minar, as few out-of-region cnnstcuctian waxkers are likely to be accornpanied by
families. Constructian-related" impacts to iocai ntilities are also expected to be minor and temparary.
Upon development of industrial facilities, operarion is expected to r�quire additional public services, As
shown in Table 3, i�dustrial development can be expec#ed to result in a siguificattt number of new jabs,
ranging from about i,2S0 for tiie snnallest site {Site C— Beverly Burke) to nearly S,OOU at the largest site
(Site A — Whe�ler Bast).
Typically, every new jab created in an urban area results in addikional new jobs and bnsinesses to provide
necessary services to tha expanfled ecanomy. This pheaoxncnon is referred to as an "employment �
Grant County December 1999
Majvr Industriad Developmen�x 24 FCI
ENVIRONMEIdTAL CHECKLIST
��r�ie�wsm�a�srs
mulrip2ier." Based on preiiminary research conducted by Chase Economics, the Washingtan State input-
Qutput Model {1993} indicates that an empioyment multipiier of 2.I2 is typical far the empiayment
sector referred to as '`indusuzal trucks and tractars." Thus, for every ctirect job in this seczor, which best
represents the industrial development expected at master planned docations. another 1.12 jobs will be
created within the local area.
However, not alI af the new jobs (both direct and indirect) are expected ta result in "in-migration" to
Grant Caunty. Some of the new jobs znay be �lled by those currentiy unemployed and residing in the
Caunty. For example, some of the new indirect, service-industry jabs may be �lied by a previousiy
unemployed spouse or a teenager, and would not resuit in in-migratian. Based on data published by the
Washington State Emplayment Security Departrnent, an in-migrarion factor of 50% is �ppropriate for
Grant Caunty. That is, 1 out of every 2 new jobs will be filled with in-migrants.
Table 3
Estimated Emptvyees
Net Tota!
Gross DEV8,�8f11Yt1�E Estimured Estimated
Aret� Arear Employees 7'nta! Employmenr :'Yew
Site .�Vame (Acresl (Acres) per Acre' Employees .1lultiplier3 Jobs
A Wheeler East 2,040 $16 6.0 4,896 2.12 10,380
B Ephrata Airport 1,560 624 6.0 3,744 2.12 7,937
North
C Beverly Burke 520 2{38 6A 1,248 2.22 2,646
D Martin 584 232 6.0 1,392 2.12 2,951
Net deveiopable area caicuiated as 40% of grass area.
� Estirnated ernployces� per acre based on analysis of 13 indusMes in Grant C�unty.
' Source: Washington State Input-Output Model, 1993, Chase Econornics
As for transportation, the eumutative im}sacts of designation and development of two mastez planned
lacatious for major izidustriai develapment must bs evaluated. The mast significant irnpact would be for
the designatian of SiYe A and Site B, creatsng a cumulative total estimate of 18,317 new jabs, Applying
an in-rnigra#ion iactor o£ 50% results in 9,158 new residents to Grant County. Based on designation o�
both Sites A and B, the impact to capital facilities is estimated in Table 4 below.
Tabde 4
Estimated Capitat Facatitv fmpttcrs
TyFe of Capatal � � LQS ` Facilitaes
Facilitya Uaits Standardz ( Rea'd'
Detention
Enforcement
Offices
Beds/1,000 popularian � 3.00 1 28 Beds
syste:m
' See Chapter 8 of Grant �ounry Comprehensive Plan/DEIS for descriptions.
2 Levei af Service standards established in Grattt Caunty Comprehensive Plan1DEIS.
' See Chapter IO —'Utilities Element of Grant Gflanty Comgrehensive Plan/DEIS for descriprion,
° Cornputed by rnultiplying LQS standard by the estimatcd 9,158 new residents.
$ Additional papulation not expected to impact solid waste facilities.,
Crunt County pecember 1999
Major Industrial Dev�lopments 25 PCI
EiVViRC3NMENTAi. CNECKLIST
The irnpaci of potenrial futuze development may create deiiciencies i;n the numbex of Iaw enforcernent
deputies, juvenile detenrion beds, arad correcrions ofiicers. i10 deiiciencies are iikely to be created in
solid waste systems ar administrative of�ces.
There wouid be a positive potential irnpact an public services due to industriai deveiopment in the forrn
af uacxeased pxaperty tax revenue. Assessed value can be variable depending upon the capztal intensity af
the deveiopment. Presented below in Table 5 is a summary af assessed value for industrial properties
located in three areas of Grant County. Assessed value ranges from just over $12,000 per acre at the
Grant County Airport to mare than $90,000 per acre in the Wheeler Carridor, where industnia�
develapmenC is both capital intensive and of high density. In tha middle of the range is the prirnariiy
agricultural processiuxg industry in the Warden area at abaut $44,040 per acre.
Tctble S
Estdmared Assessed Value�
Total 1998
Gross 1998 Assessed
Industrial No. of Area Assessed Vatae per
Area Accounts (Acres) Value Acre
Warden 25 3i3.44 � 16,329,330 �43,727
Wheeler Carridar 36 t,541.03 � 139,253,614 $9U,364
Grant County Airport 68 6,584.76 � 81,405,350 $12,302
Economics & Iteed Hansen & Associates
Because the intensity af industriai devetopment for the master planned iacatians is expected to be higher
than that in the Warden ar Quincy areas, but less than that in the Wheeler Corridor area, an average
assessed vaiue vf $75,40Q per gross acre is appropriate. Based on that average value and 1999 ta�c levy
rates, the estimated ta�c revsnue generated by the potential sites is presented in Table 6. �
Tabte 6
Estimated Anr�aal Tax Revenus
Gross t9ssessed Assessed 1.7854 2.2226
Ar�a t�atue per Vad�se Gsra�ral Road
Siie Name {Aeres) Acrel ($1,000) Fur�d Feend
A Wheeier East 2,44Q $75,040 $153,400 $273,166 $340,058
B Ephrata Aixgort 1,560 $?S,Q00 $117,000 $208,892 $260;044
Norkh •
C Beveriy Burkc 520 �75,000 $ 39,004 $ b9,631 � 86,681
D Martin 580 $75,000 $ 43,500 � 7i,665 � 96,683
�__ ___,_,_._ =--,_.3_J :_ T_Lt.. t
2 1999 Levy rates.
If both Sites A and B vvere designated, the total cambined assessed value upan fult development intensity
is ostimated at $270,000,000, and would distribute annuatly an estirnated total of $482,OOQ to the County
Genet�al Fund (Current Expense) and rnore than $500,000 to the County Road �'und. Distribution from
property tax revenues would also be made ta special districts, schaol districts and cities. An increase in
lacai retail sales and use tax can also be anticipated as a resalt of industrial developrnent. These funds can
be used to rnaintain desired ievels of public services.
b. Proposed rneasures to reduce ar control direct impac#s on public services, if anya
Measures to reduce ar miti�ate temparary construction it�npaets of future indusbrial deveiopznent as a
result of this non-project ac�ion couid inciude: �
Grant Cou�� ' �� December 1999
Ma, jor Industrial Developmerets 26 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
• Coordination of construction activities with local emergency service providers to ensure access to all
locations in the vicinity of the sitel s) in the case of an emereency:
• Temporary measures to control constzuction trafiic; and
• Noise and dust control methods.
Industnal lands are expected to be developed in a phased manner, which will moderate the need for
public services over time. Mitigarion of potenrial impacts include:
• Developing LOS standards that ensure adequate resources are available to meet demands for service;
and
• Implementing policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to mitigate capital facility impacts if
funding shortfalls occur.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural gas, water, refuse service.
telephone, sanitaxy sewer, septic system, other.
A comprehensive inventory of utilities is provided in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS.
Urilities available at the sites are described in the attached Site Selecrion Report. None of the sites have
utilities at the sites as will ultimately be required to serve the proposed future industrial development.
Utilities available to the sites include:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: electricity, natural gas, refuse service, and telephon.e. Water and sewer
disposal is provided in the vicinity by the City of Moses Lake, but City services are not anticipated to
be provided to the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport Norih: electncity, natural gas, refuse service, and telephone. Water and
sewer disposal is provided in the vicinity by the City of Ephrata, but City services are not anricipated
to be provided to the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: electricity, refuse service, and. telephone. Water and sewer disposal is
provided in the vicinity by the City of George, but City services are not anricipated to be provided to
the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
4. Site D� Martin: electricity, natural gas, refuse service, and telephone. Water and sewer disposal is
provided in the vicinity by the City of Quincy, but City services are not anticipated to be provided to
the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Not applicable to this non-project action.
Future industrial development is expected to require electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities. Service providers vary from site to site; a comprehensive
inventory of utility providers is included in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS. Although water
and sewer service having adequate capacity to serve the potential industrial development may exist in the
urban growth areas adjacent to the potenrial sites, it is not anticipated to be made available to serve future
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 27 PCI
ENViRONMENTAL CHECKLiST
industrial development. Grant Gounty may elect to develop and provide water and sewer service to the
future developmenC. �
C. Signatare
The above an§wers are t
reiying an them to ma e its
Signature.
ta the best af my knowiedge. I understand that the lead agencv is
�
Date Submitted: �_/�,,.G!'�����-�c. �T ''��//
D. SUP'PLEMENTAL SIiEET FOR N(}NPROJECT FICTIClNS {do not use this sheez for project acrions)
Because these questions are very general, it rnay be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements
of the envirotunent.
When answerin� tb.ese questions, be aware of the extent the grapasai, or the types of activiries likelytto result from
the propasat, wouid affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the pxoposal wers not'�iznplemented.
Respond briefly and in generai terms.
Please reference the Grant County Comprehensive Plan Draft Enviranmental lmpacd Statement, March 29,
1998, incorporated heretn by reference, far a detailed diseussron of the impacts major industriuX
develop►nent to the elernents of the envirortmen�
1. How woaid the proposai be likely to fncreaxe discharge to vvater, emissions to air; production, storage,
or reiease of taaic or hazardous substances; or praduction af noise2
Fniure industrial developrnent resulting from this non-project acrion is li.kely to result in increases in surface
and ground dischargas, and air and noise ernissions. The intensity of discharges and emissions are higi�ty
d�pendent an the types of industry that may develop. Additionat site analysis to identify discharges and
emissions wnil be conducted as part of site-specific development praposals reiated ta fizture development af
any sites designated as master planned Iacarions for major industriai dev�iopment.
Pt°aposed mea�ur�� to avoid or reduce s��ta increases are:
Futuxe industrial developmont resulting from this non-project action wiit be required to compiy with current
local, state and fedoral zegulatiotts and the gaals and policiex of the Grant County Comgrehensive Plan
intended to prevent degradation of air and water quality and promote propea rnanagemant of starmwatsr and
solid and hazardous wastes. Proper imgiementarian and admfuistration af ths Graut County Resaurce Lands
and Griticai Areas Qrdivance provides zrutigation measuzes for the gotential impacts.
Imp�cts of futtu� developtnent activities will be evaluated in acoordance with the SEPA rules, the Grani
County Shorcline Management Program� Resourcc Land,s and Criticat Areas oxdinance, and other pertiaent
development regulations when praposals for future development are received. The County wiil consider the
irnpacts of industrial deveio�ment and may reqnire appropriate mitigation based upan plans, policies, nzles and
r�gui�tians in effect at the time af development. '
2. How �vvould the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
�uture industrial develapxnent resultin� from this non-project action wili not sign�cantiy impac� plants,
anirnals, fish and mazine life. Constructi�n of new industrial faaitities map elimaaate some sxisting vegetation,
depending on site-specific conditions. Na impacts are cxpected to aquatic arganisms.
^ �rrw • '�'���
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrica! Developments Z8 P�I
ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST
ra.dditianal site analysis to identify impacts to plants, anirrtals, fish and marine Iffe will be conductad as part of
site-specific development prc�pasais reiated to future devciopment of any sites designated as znaster pia�ned
Iacations far major industrial development.
Proposed measures to protect or canserve ptants, aaimals, fish, or marine life are:
See responses ta items �.D and S.D of the enviranmentai checkiist.
Future industrial development resulting from zhis non-project action will be required to comply with curreut
1oca1, state and federal regularions and the gpals and policies of the Grant County Campxehensive Plan
intended to prevent degradation o£ fish and wildlife and their habitat. Proper implernentation and
aciministration of the Grant County Resource Lands and Crirical Areas Ordinance provides ani.tigarian
measures for the potential impacts.
Impacts af future deveiapzzlent activities wiil be evaluated in accardanc� with, the SEPA rules, ihe Grant
County Shoreline Ivlanagement Program, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, and other pertinent
development regulations when proposals for future- deveiopment are received. The County will consider the
irnpacts of indusizial development and may reqnire appropriate marigarian based upon plans, policiss, rulas and
regularions in effect at the tizne of deveiopment.
3. How would #he proposai be likei� to depiete energy or naturai resources?
Future industrial development resulting from this non-project actian are likely to require energy and natural
resources, including natusal gas, elecirical power, fuel, and solar ensrgy, for power, heating and transportarion.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resoarces are:
In selecrian af patenriai sites for designation as master plannad location far majar izzdustriai deveiopment,
evaluarian criteria included consideratian of the proximity and capacity af naturai gas and eieciricai power. All
stntctures would be built in conformance with Couniy building cads and state energy code requirernents.
Impacts of future devclopment activities wi11 be evaluated in accordanae witti the SEFA rules, the Grant
County Shoreline Management Prograrn, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, State enezgy and
County buzlding codes, an.d ather pertu2ent deveiopment regularions when proposals far futuxe development
are received The County will cansider the impacts of industriai devetopment and may require apprapriate
rnirigation based ugon plans, policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time af developmene.
4, How would the proposal be likely to use or a£fect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or ander s#udy) for governmental protectian; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cuIturai sites, wet[ands, tloodplains, or prime
farmlands?
The praposed nan-project action designates land far conversion to indusirial use, including same lauds
currently in agricultiu�al use. Bnvironmentally sensirive, critical areas are present on the sites, including
wetlands and fish and wild.life speciss and habitat. No historic or cultural elements are anticipated at the sites.
Fnture industrial devetopment will be managed to prcvent impacts to environmentally sensitive areas through
appropriate site design measures.
Addit�on;al site analysis ta identify envu�nmentally sensitive areas and impacts ta them will be conducted as
part of site-spec�c development proposals related ta future devetopment of any sites designated as master
planned locations far major industrial developrnent. �
Proposed measeares to prote�t such resouress ar ta avoid or reduce impacts are:
Propased measures to pratect resaurces are describad in the response to item 8i of the envirannientai checklist.
Imgacts af future r3eveiopment activities wiil be evaluate@ in accardance wit3i the SEPA ruies, the Grant
Grant County December 1999
Major Cndustrial Devetopments 29 PCI
ENVIFtt7NMENT,0.L CH�CKL.IST
`� County Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands. and Criticai Areas ordinance, and ather pertinent
flevelopment regulations when proposais for future develapment are received. The County will consider the
impacts of indnstrial developrnent and may require appropriate mirigation based upon plans, policies, rules and �
regularions in effec# at the time of development. �
S. How wouid tha propasal ba likely to affect land and shoreiine use, includiug whether it would allow or
encourage iand ar shorelir�e uses incompatiiale with esisting plans?
None of the proposed sites lie within designated sharatines. Existing land uses wiii be converted ta industrial
use. Such industriai land use is compatible wirh the requirements of the Gran�t County Comprehensiva Plan,
which adopted a pracess for designarion of rnaster planned Iocations foz major industrial development, and the
requirernents of RCW 36.7dA:367 af tha Growth Managemeni Act.
Prapased m,easures to avaid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Sites have been identi�ed and evaivated based partially on their consistency and campatibility with site a�d
adjacent land uses and Comprehensive Plan dasign�rions. Designation of master planned locatians far major
industrial developmenC recognizes th� County's need for industzial Iands and its associated praperty tax
zevenue for long term viability of service provision. Designation is consistent with thc requirexnents af RCW
36.70A.367. Sit� deveiopment and design requirements wiil ensure that:
,,}..: ,
l. Buffers are provided between the majar industrial deveiapment and adjacent nanurban areas;
2. Developmsnt regulations are established ta ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurba�
areas;
3, Pravisian is made ta mirigate advsrs� impacts on designated agricultuxal lands, forest Iattds, and minaral
resource lands; and
4. The pian for majar industrial developme�t is consistent with the County's development regulations �
established far protect�c�n of critiaal areas.
Impacts oi futur� development activities wiil be evaivated in accardaace with the SEPA rules, the Grant
Caunty Shareizns Mauagement Program, Re�ource Latids and Criti�al Areas ordinance, and other pertinent
development regulations when proposals for future development are received. The County wiil cansider the
impacts af industriai devalopment and may require apprapriate mitigatian based upon pians, po3icxes, rules.and
regtziatzans in effeet at the tim� of develop�sent.
6. How would the proposai be tikeiy to increase demands on transportation ar pubtic services, and utilities?
Future development at the sites is cxpec#ed ta incrcase demands on transportation, public services and utiiitios
due to increased smplayment and popula#ian. Estimates of increased demands are identifted in items 14, 15
and I6 of the envirotimet�tal checktist.
Praposed measures to reduce or r�spond ta such demaud(s) are:
The GMA and ihe Gz�t Caunty Camprehensive Plan/EIS require that new devslopment be prohibited untess
txansportation imgrovements to accommoda�e the impacts of development or funding strategies far such
improvements are made concurnent with the development or will be iu�ancially pianned ta be in plaae withi�n
six years. If propbsed deveiopment is expected to decrease LOS belaw adopied standards, tzansportation
impravemcmts nnusi be made. Devetopment must provide mitigarion of off-sits traffic impacts.
Iuxpacts of futurc development activities, if any, wiii be evaluatec! in accordauee with the SEPA rules, th�
tirnnt County Comprehensive Plan, and other pertinent develogment regulations when propasals for futuze
development are received. The Caunty will c�nsider the innpacts of industtial devclopmene on traffic and
tr�n.sportation impravement� and may requixe appropriate mitigataon based upon plans, poliaies, rules and
reguiations in effect at the tune of devalapin�t� �
Grant County December 1999
Ma,}or Industt ial Developments ,�Q ,' PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Future development may requue improvements to roads and urilities, depending upon site-specific condirions
and the nature and size of the proposed facilides. Trafiic demand management pracrices that may be required
include encouraging industries to operate on a mulriple-shift basis, develop nde-share incenrives, use public
lransit and park-and-ride faciliries, and to use the rail mode to the greatest extent pracricable.
Industrial lands are expected to be developed in a phased manner, which will moderate the need for public
services over time. Mitigation of potenrial impacts include:
• Developing LOS standards that ensure adequate resources are available to meet demands for service; and
Implementing policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to mitigate capital facility impacts if
funding shortfalls occur.
Industnal development will also generate significant property tax revenue from which distnbutions would be
made to the County General Fund (Curreat Expense) and the County Road Fund. Distriburion from property
tax revenues would also be made to special districts, school districts and ciries. An increase in local retail sales
and use tax can also be anticipated as a result of industrial development. These funds
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or rsquirements
for the protection of the environmente
Both this non-project action and future industrial development will comply with all local, state, and federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
Attachments
1. Figure 1 Site Locations
2. Figure 2 Site A— Wheeler East MID
3. Figure 3 Site B— Ephrata Airport North MID
4. Figure 4 Site C— Beverly Burke MID
5. Figure 5 Site D— Martin MID
6. Figure 6 Grant County Road System �
.
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 31 PCI
n i_�_ p a
�
►
✓
/" , ♦ r
�,
i
�� �
'�r,�"�'
�p'K ��
��
� �
�Z�
r ;, �
a
1 "�
y
�
�
�-, c
��¢� �
,
,�
., ��r►
..�
,
► ,
.
, +,.
,
, ,,�
! -
' '� \ ' ` , , �
,
�, �
� -- �a
� �
�
`\ '� ��
�� � .
��'" � .�
. ''' ,-����,
. MI i i
� � � � � .� �� ,i, �
.. \ -IM` .�< � ,
. .�. ��; •� � '
lI J... 1� � ' {i' � �, �
.�
�► � �` � '
�.
.r �.� : �'I� , . f �� ��,�� G�,
� ,�. �-' �-- _ :
'�i r ,� ' _' �
. .. � � � .
� ��, �,��,,,��`.`. �j►�,�,.,. �, �� . �\��.
, .��,�,,'�� ��;� ,,... , ; ,�'�►r . �
�., �' ,,,r►.� �J�` � 'r'/ :f .� ; <���'�' �
� � r � �` �
` `
� '
�� ��,�1NE��4� .., .� �
`,��''�-� `. �� �__-- � ,
�►�, ' �
. .,,,�
.� ��. �. _ -�'''',
�, - . � ,,../
\l w ,; ., r_..�� �..�$ ��` ;,►� ,,,..._•
� � 'ir.- .� ,, :r , � ,
.. � , � ` r � ,/�
, � . . : �
1 . � l , ,��
` , a �`''`"�....•�
\`
' !- .
` _ , �► ,��
� + , ~ � ��,
/ � �
i �
� ...►�^,�!� � � �
�����`- . �'-'- � L'�
r�����''�►� ♦
� �.•�,,� � � : �,r
�r► ,(� � �
'
� _ ` . \.
I `: , `� �
�
.,.�'
�
.
� � �
>
a ,,,
;{
�
*�
� r, � i
' � • l
. � + �
� '
��
,-�`'�`�--�� Q �.�
� �, �� �`
L�4K� V1
��N%�'
RZ�'� 1�2'7
' . •� •�•�'�'�" 1� 1��
•
e -
•
� •� • •
• e
+ p � 4 �
• �
. • e � . •
• . •
� � • � � i �
i , • �
� �� • • • � y i
. • ! ` � • i � • � � P �
• ! f s ; , e • �
s •
; � ♦ s . . ' s •
♦ i �� • �ei � •�
� �r+ ��•« • e ` � `• '���
, � A � s
♦ s
� � �� n y ~ ~ ~ +�
�'�^�`._ �� �� 1
� �� �
i�� � t , �4"E~ �
�
�
�
�I
� �_
��t !7
� 3
�_
`,
> j
, ..
���
�,�r N���N
�
�
�
�
.
0
'�
�
i,�,,•�-'''�� �'�
�
� � �
, t7,�,, �.
,� �� �o�
"T�'
N .� '+r''''
� � �
� �
�
�i=+
� +�•
' � C
s �
�� � g1 C
� � ,�t
e!�` ~n
� �l
» ` � 4
�
* �� M
•
• _
• �
e �
�' • e� � N
,� • • `. �-
��:r• �; •
i *
•
•�
e �� e
e •• � �
•� 1 •
�
t r ��
. s �
` ew
° �s
•; �
•
•
• + ♦ •� ••� ' ,��G�."'
r• �
� �e � ` �
i'
•• + � ♦
• s
s
• 1 � �
r � + �
� M ���,
• t r♦
ie• � �
r." � •
R • �' � � �I
i
M
/' . .r,.'"` C � t".+_ �
��
_/`�/'"i �
��
n �...� r....�v _ I
....,. � o... ..._. �.�
S � Soap Lk�
j ��
�1,�.
r -- �.
.�
� �,�.�
! a�m,�s p .�, � , �
' _i
,�, . .
Gf�ANT C4UNTY� ROAQ SYSTEM �
PROJECTED 2018 TRAFFiC VOLU,�}ES
FtGURE
�
�
i
_ .., �
DATE:
TO:
FROM
RE:
Grani County Long �ang� �lannin� �epariment
35 C Street N,W,
December 10, 1999
Interested Agencies
Post Office Box 37 �phrata, Washington 98823
(509) 754-2011 rax (509) 754-0449
Peter Comenzo - Grant County Planning
Grant County Courthouse, P.O. Box 37
Ephrata, Wa§hington 98823
Determination of Non-Significance
This is to advise you that the Grant County Pianning Department has issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for ths following proposai:
Grant County Comprehensive Plan Amendment '
The proposed non-project action is an amendment to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to designate
not more than two master planned locations for major industrial development as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367 of the GMA. Such designation will allow Grant County to enhance attraction of new industrial
businesses by providing a land bank of suitabte industrial sites in advance of specific proposals to locate
a business in Grant County. The four potential sites are located within the unincorporated portion of Grant
County, Washington and outside of Urban Growth Areas designated in the Grant County Comprehensive
Plan. �
After a review of a completed Environmental Checklist, the Site Selection Report and the GMA
Compliance Assessment on file with the Planning Department, Grant County has determined that this
proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Copies of the Site
Selection Report and the GMA Compiiance Assessment are available at no charge from the Grant
County Planning Department, P.O. Box 37 (32 C Street NW, Room 318), Ephrata, WA 98823,
Enclosed is the SEPA Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance issued for this proposal.
You are asked to submit any comments on the DNS by December 27, 1999 to Peter Comenzo of the
Grant County Planning Department at the above address. If no comments are received by that due date,
we will assume you have no comment.
Dlstribu�on Lis� Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia
Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlffe, Ephrata
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington State Department of Health
Washington State Dep. of Community Trade and Economic Development
Washington State Department of Coreections
Washington State Department of Parlcs and Recreation
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
Washington State Departmenfof Fish and Wildlife, Olympia
Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission
Washington State Superintendent of Public tnstruction
Washington State Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation
Washington State Department of Agricuiture
Washington State Department of L& I
- - � � US Bureau of Reclamation
US Department of Game
US ARMY Corps and Eng'sneering �
US Bureau of Land Management
Soil Gonservation
Nationai Resource and Conservation Service, Ephrata
Grant Gounty Hsalth Depa�tment
Grant County Puhlic Works DeQartment
Grant County Noxious Weed Contral 6aard
Grant County Weed Districts
G�ant Caunty P.U.D.
Grant County Housing Authariiy
Grant Transit Authority
Grant County Economic Deveiopment Councii
Calville Confederated Tribes �
. U.S. Bureau of Fteclamation, Ephsata
City of Moses Lake
Port of Moses Lake
City �nd Port �f Couiee Cify
City of Cou{ee Dam � '
City and Po�t of Elsctric City
�ity and Port of Ha�tline
City and Port �f Royai City
C3ty and Port of Ma#tawa
C1ty and Port of Wiisan �r�ek
City and Rort of 4uincy
Citjr and Port of Ephrata
City af Gearge
City of KnaPP
City and �'o�t of Soap Lake
City and Port of Warden
Grant Counfiy Hospifai Districts
Grant Caunty Cattfemans Association - �
Gtant County Imlga�on Dist�cts (4)
AdJoining County Commissioners
Gr�nt County Schooi Districts (1Q}
Yakima indian Nation
Cofv911e Confeder�ted ieibes
Grant County Reaitu�s Associatipn
Big Bend Economrc Deveiopmen# Cauncii
Gran# Caunty Charnbers of Cammerce (7}
[}ucks Unlimited
Audubon Sacisty
�
Grant Coun�y Long �Range �ianning �epar�ment
35 C Street N.W. �ost Office 8ox 37 �phrata, Washington 98823
(509) 754-2011 Fax (509) 754-0449
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGIVIFICANCE
Description of Proposal: The proposed non-project action is an amendment to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan to designate not more than two master planned
locations for major industrial development as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367 of the GMA. Such designarion will allow Grant County to
enhance attraction of new industnal busiaesses by providing a land
bank of suitable industrial sites in advance of speciiic proposals to
locate a business in Grant County.
Proponent:
Gaant County
PO Box 37
Ephrata WA 98823
Location of Proposal: The four potenrial sites are located within the unincorporated portion of
Graat County, Washington and outside of Urban Growth Areas
designated in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. Site locations are
generally described as follows;
DNS
1. Site A— Wheeler East (I-90 East revised): Includes Sections 15, 21
and 22 and a portion of Secrion 16, all in Township 19 North,
Range 29 East. The site is adjacent to and east of the Moses Lake
UGA, about 1'/Z miles north of Interstate 90. The site is also
divided north and south by O Road, and east and west by Wheeler
Road. T1ae site is also divided by the East Low Canal. The site is
approximately 2,040 acres.
Site B—Ephrata Airport North (Rocky Ford revised): Includes
portions of Secrions 1, 2 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 26
East and portions of Secrion 6 and 7, Township 21 North, Range
27 East. The site abuts and lies to the northeast of the Ephrata
UGA. The site is bounded to the west by the Burlington Northern
Raikoad and to the east by State Route 17. The site is
approximately 1,560 acres.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: Includes portions of Secrions 29, 30 and
32, Township 19 North, Range 24 East. The site abuts and lies to
the northeast of the George UGA. The site is divided by Beverly
Burke Road and I 90, which divides the southeast portion of the
site. The site is approximately 520 acres.
4. Site D— Martin: Includes portions of Sections 9 and 10, Township
20 North, Range 24 East. The site abuts and lies to the east of the
Quincy UGA. The site is bounded on the west by Road P, and is
divided by the West Canal. The site is bounded on the west by
Road 11 NW, on the south by 5tate Route 28, and is divided by
Road O. The site is immediately adjacent to industrial property
within the Quincy UGA. The site is approximately 580 acres.
-`� Lead Agency: Grant Caunry, Grant County Couzt House, P.�. Box 37, Ephrata,
WA 9$823.
The lead agency for this proposai has determined that it does not hav� a probabie significant adverse
impact on the environment. An Enviranmental ImpacL Statem�nt (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.434 (2} (c}. The decisian was made after review of a comgleted checklist and other information
an tiie with the iead agency. This information is available ta the public upon request.
Th.ere is a commen.t period far ihis DNS. This DNS is issued under WAC i97-11-340(2}; the lead
agency witi not act on this proposai for 1S days from the date balow. Camments must be submitted
by: Deceynber 2�, 1999 to the Responsible C}fficial.
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 {2�, the SEPA Responsible Ofiicial may reconsider the I3NS based upan
timely comments and may retain, or modify the DNS, ar if the Responsibie C;fficiai det�rmines that a
significant adverse impact is li%ely, withdraw the DNS or sup�orting docurnents. If a DNS is modified,
the tead agency wiil send the madified i}NS ta agencies with jurisdaction.
Responsible Cifficiai; Pet�r Camenza, Date: December ll�, 1999
Senior Planner '
Grant Caunty Planning Department "
P.O, Box 37, 8phrata, WA 98$37 Signature: Peter Cornenzo .
Phone: (509) 754-2011
Respo ible Officia!
Appeals: You may appeal thi.s deterinination to the Board of Grant County Comuxzssioners iocated at
'I'he Grant County Court House, P.C?. Box 37, Epiirata, Washington no later than 3an 10, 24Q(? by
written notice of appeal pursuant to the requirem�nts of the Cira�t Caunty SEPA Ordinanee.
You should be prepared to make speciiic factual objectians. Cantact the Responsible (Jfficial ta read or
ask �bc�ut ihe procedures for SEPA appeals.
Pubiish; Calumbia Basin Heratd
Grant County 3aumai
Royal Review
Coulee City News-Standard
Gtand Caulee Star
Tri-City Herald
Quiucy Post Register
Wenatchee World
��
December
D�mber
December
December
DGcember
December
Det�mber
De�ember
l4,
13,
15,
15,
1S,
13,
15.
13,
1999
1449
1999
1999
1993
2999
i994
1999
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Pi�rpose of checklist.•
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAI, chapter 43.21C RCW, requues all governmental agencies to consider
the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement l EISI must be
prepared for all proposals with probable signif'icant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose
of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
lnstructions for applicants;
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental
agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts bf youx proposal are significant,
requiring prepararion of an EIS. Answer the quesrions briefly, with the most precise informarion known, or give the
best descriprion you can.
You must answer each quesrion accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should
be able to answer the quesrions from your own observarions or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you
really do not lrnow the answer, or if a quesrion does not apply to your proposal, write "do not laiow" or "does not
apply." Complete answers to the quesrions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask abouC governmental regularions, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmazk designarions. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its
environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist nnay ask you to explain your answers or
provide addirioaal infoPmation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
The complete checklist, including the "supplemental sheet for nonproject proposals" (part D), should be completed
for nonproject proposals (such as proposais for land-use designarion or density designation changes)..
For nonproject acrions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site"
should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respecrively. Where a question asks for
information that is not pertinent to a nonproject proposal, the question may be answered "does not apply,"
A. BACKGROUND
1.
2.
Name of proposed Qroject, if applicable:
Grant County Cocnprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate Master Planned Locarions for Major Industrial
Development
Name of applicant:
Grant County Deparnnent of Community Development, Long Range Planning Division
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Scott Clark, Deputy Director
Grant County Community Developmeat
Long Range Planning Division
P.O. Box 37
35 C Street N.W.
Ephrata, Washington 98823
(509)754-2011
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industria! Devetopments 1 pCl
�r�viRONnn�rv°ra�. cHEc�cc.��-r
�i�nu� n
�#. Date checklist prepared:
December 6, 1499
S. �gency requesting checidist:
Grant County Department of Community Development
6, Proposed timing or schedule (includiag phasing, if appiicablej:
An amendment to the Grant Caun.ty Comprehensive Plan to designate not more than two master pianned
locarians for majar industriai deveiapme�at will be adopted prior ta December 31, 1999.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, espansion, or fux°ther activity reiated to ar connected with
this proposai? If yes, eapiain.
Yes. The purpose of designarion of master planned locarions for major indus#riat development as auth�zized
undez the RCW 36.7UA.367 of the Growth Management Act (GMA) is ta aliaw Grant Caunty to enhance
attraction of new industriai businesses by praviding a land bank of suitable industrial sites in advanoe of
specific pxoposals to locats a bus'vness in Grant County. •
Such designation af nnaster planned iocations for major industrial develapmeut will establish allowabla futuxe
tand use within the baundaries of the designated areas. This action may result in development of lands within
the designated areas for industrial puxposes. Such development may inctude constzucrion of fnfrastructure ta
provide public services, inetnding water, sewer, roadways, eiectrical pnwer, rail, or utilities.
Each acrian of further dsvelopznent subsequent to designarion af a master planned location for rnajor industriai
development will be subject to environmental review, as required under thc GMA and RCW 197-11-96Q.
8. Lisi any environnner�tal information you ksiow abo+�t that has been prepared, or will be prepared, �
directly related to this prop�sal9
1. Gr�ttt Caunty Coztiprehensive Plan I?raft Enviranmental Impaat Statement, March 29, 1998, incorpozated
herein by reference.
2. Grant Couniy Cornprelxensive Plau1 Final Environmental Tmgact Statement, September 3Q, 1999,
incorporated herein by refexence.
3. Site Selectian Repart for Designation of Master Planned Locations for Major Industrial Development,
December 6, 1999. .�r.
4, GMA Complianco Assessment for Designation of Master Pianned Locatians far Majot Industriat
Development, December 1999. �
9, Do you know whe#her apptic�tions are pending for governmentai approvais of ather propasals directly
affecting the praperty cavered by your prapasat7 If yes, eapiain.
N� other applioations ar approvats related to the properties covered by this proposal are pending.
10. List any gavernment approvats or permits that will be needed for your praposal, if known.
1. The proposed amendment to the Grant Caunty Comprehensive Plan wili he adopted by the Grant Gounty
Boazd of Commissioners.
2. Subsequent development of designated lands may require gavemmental approvais and permits.
3. The proposed arnendment to the Grant County Com�rehensive Plan will be reviewefl by the Washingtoza
State Department of Cornmunity, Trade and Economic Development.
11. Give brief, complete deseription of your proposai, including the praposed uses and the size of the praject �
. and site. There are s�verai questions iater in this checklist that ask yau to de�cribe certain aspects of
Grant Counry �— �� December 1999
Mqjor Industrial Developments 2 pCl
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this
form to include additionai specifc information on project descriprion.l
The proposed non-project acrion is an amendment to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to designate not
more than rivo master planned locations for major industrial development as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367 of the Gi�1A. Such designation will allow Grant County to enhance attraction of new indusirial
businesses by providing a land bank of suitable industrial sites in advance of specific proposals to locate a
business in Grant Courity. � '
Under RCW 36.70A.367, Grant County, in consultarion with ciries, is authorized to designate a bank of no
more than two master planned locarions for major industrial developments, such as manufacturing or industrial
businesses, outside of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) that:
• Requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or
• Is a nattual resource-based industry requiring a location near agriculturat land upon which it is dependent;
or
• Requires a locarion with characterisrics such as proxunity to uansportation facilities or related industries
such that there is no suitable locarion in an urban growth area.
Although the proposal is a non-project acrion, it is site-specific. Based on a site selecrion process conducted by
a citizens' advisory committee, four sites have been idenrified as potenrially suitable for designation as a
master planned location for major industrial develapment, and for which environmental review will be
conducted prior to designarion of not more than two sites. All four sites are located outside of Urban Growth
Areas designated in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. The four sites and their sizes are:
1. Site A— Wheeler East; 2,040 acres.
2. Site B e Ephrata Auport North; 1,560 acres.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke; 520 acres.
4. Site D— Martin; 580 acres.
The site selecrion reporC is attached to this environmental checklist.
'Chis proposal does not include physical development of any of the sites, but only their designation in the Grant
County Comprehensive Plan as master planned locations for major indusUrial developmenc. Actions related to
subsequent development will be subject to environmental aeview, as required under the SEPA rules.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project, including a strect address, if any, and sectian, township, and range, if known. If
a proposal wouid occnr over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provfde a
legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably avaiiable. Give the taz
parcel number. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications. related to this checklist.
The four potential sites are located within the unincorporated portion of Grant County, Washington and outside
of Urban Growth Areas designated in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. Site locations are shovtm in. the
attached Figure 1— Site Locarions, attached detailed maps for each site, and described as follows:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: Includes Secrions 15, 21 and 22 and a portion of Secrion 16, all in Township 19
North, Range 29 East. The site is adjacent to and east of the Moses Lake UGA, about 1'/Z miles north of
Interstate 90. The site is also divided north arid south by O Road, and east and west by Wheeler Road. The
site is also divided by the East Low Canal.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North: Includes portions of Secrions 1, 2 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 26
East and portions of Section 6 and 7, Township 2I North, Range 27 East. The site abuts and lies to the
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Developments. 3 PCI
I�NVIRONMEN'TAL CHECKLlST
� �� nartheast of the Ephrata UGA. The site is bounded ta the west by the Burlingtan Narthem Railraad and to
the east by State Route i 7.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: inciudes portions of Secrions 29, 30 and 32, Townskup 19 North, Range 24 East. �
T"he site abuts and lies ta the nartheast of the George UGA. The site is divided by Beverly Burke Road and
I 90, which divides the southeast portion of the site.
�4. Site D— Martin: inctudes portians of 5ectians 9 and I0, Tawnship 2d North, Ftange 24 East. The site abuts
and Iies to the east af the Quincy UGA. The site is boundad an the west by Raad P,. and is divided by #he
West Cana3. "iite site is bounded an the west by Road 11 NW, on the south by State Route 2,8, and is
divided by Raad Q. 'I1�e site is immediately adjacent to industrial property within the Quincy UGA and is
predominautly in agricultural use.
Sita locarions are as shown on the attached map, Figure l. Detailed site maps are also att�ched.
I: • # 1 , 1 '
l. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one)t Flat, roliing, hilly, steeQ siopes, mauntainaus, ather
Sit� A— Wheeler East; flat,
Site $— Epivata Airport Narth; flat.
Site C— Beverly Burke, flat.
Site D — Maiti�; flat.
b. Wi►at is the steepest slope on the site {approximate percent stope)?
Site A— Wheeter East; iess than 2 pezcene.
Site B— Ephrata Aizpart Narth; iess than 2 p�rcent.
Sito C—$everiy �urke; ies� than 2 perceat.
Site D— Martin; less than 2 percent.
c. What general types nf soils are found on the site (for exampte, clay, sand, grave�, peatq muck)? If
yori know the etassification of agriculturai saiis, specify them and nate any prime farmland.
1. Site A— i3Jheeler �ast: Warden siit iaam; portions af the site are classiiied as prim� farrnland by the
USDA-SGS "Land Evaivation for Itrigatefl Croplands of Grant County." ,..
2. Site B— Ephraia Airport North: Malaga� sandy loam, stony to very stony.
3, Site:C— Beverly Burke: Burbank loamy fine sand.
4. Site D— Murtin: Warden siit laam, portions of the site are classified as pnin�e farniland by the USDI�-
SCS "Land Evaivatian for ir.rigated Croplands of Grant County."
Source: Sorl Survey of Grant Caunty Washington, (lSDA Soil Conservation Service, 1979.
d. Are there surface indications ar history of nnstable soiis in the immedi�te vicinity? If so, deseribe.
�
e, D►escribe the purpose, type, a�d agproximate quantitiea of any tilling or grading propased. Indicate
source of fill.
�
Grant County w December 1949
Major Industnial Aevelopments 4 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Does not apply to this non-project acrian. Future construction of infrastructure unprovements to develop
proposed sites may require e:ccavarion and grading of an undetermined quanrity of material. Future
excavarion, grading and construction actions will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules.
Sources of fill and other construcrion materials for future infrastructure development will be local sand
and gravel pits.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. Consiruction activiries related to fuitue development on lands
designated as Master Planned Locations for Major Industrial Developmeat by this action could result in
erosion. The primary cause of soil erosion in Grant County is wind. The susceptibility of anv soil type to
erosion depends upon the physical and chernical characteristics of the soil, in addition to other factors
such as vegetative cover, wind exposure, and velocity of runoff. Erodability varies by site, as follows:
1. Site A— Wheeler East.� slightly erodable.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North; not subject to wind erosion.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: very highly erodable.
4. Site D— Martin: sliehtly erodable.
Source: Sotd Survey of Grant County Washington, USDA Soil Conservation Service, I979.
g. About whai percent of the site wiil be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction
(for ezample, asphalt or buildings)?
Does not apply to this non-project action. Future development on lands designated as Master Planned
I.ocations for Major Industrial Development by this acrion are likely to result in crearion of additional
impervious surface, including paved surfaces and buildings. The amounts of impervious surfaces created
by future development will depend upon site- and development-specific design.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. During future construcrion acriviries related to development on
lands designated as Master Planned Locations for Major Industrial Development by this action, the
potenrial for water- and wind-caused erosion will be minimi�ed through the use of temporary and
permanent erosion control rneasures and Best Management Practices to control offsite migrarion of silt,
consistent with the requirements of local jurisdictions and State requirements. Impacts of futurc
develapment, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent
developmeat regulations when proposals for future development are received.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors,
industriai wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally
describs and give approaimate quantities if known.
Emissions related to development on lands designated as Master Planned Locarions for Major Industrial
Development by this acrion are expected to include those typically generated during construcrion,
including fugitive emissions of particulate matter and engine emissions. Quanriries will vary based on
site size and development activities. Typical engine emissions include, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, hydrocazbons, and particulates.
Emissions related to operation of industries, once completed, are unl�own, and will be subject to
environmental review, as required under the SEPA rules.
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industrial Developments ' S PCI
�iVViRONMENTAt� CH�CKLlST
�� b. �re there any off-site sonrces of emissions ar adar eha# may affect yaur prapasai? If so, gez�erally
deseribe.
Tto.
c. Proposed tneasures to reduce ar contral emissians or other impacts to air. if anyt
Does not apply to this non-project action.
The Departznent of Ecology has designat�d Graat Caunty as currently in attainment for all standards,
Appaopriate conirc�i measures wiil be implenneated to controi emissions during future constrtzctian
related to this no�x-project action, subject ta environmental review, as required under the SEPA rules.
Emissions, if any, relaied to aperarion of completed industrial developmene wili be contralied and
monitored as required to ensure that they do not exceeci federal and state regulatory standards set by the
Degarument of Ecology or athcr jurisdictional air c}uality control authority. Impacts of fizture
development, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent
development regulations when praposais for future develapment are zeceived.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is th+ere any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year—
round and seasonai streams, saltwater, lakes, pands, �vettands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. if appropriate, state what strearn or river it flaws intae ,
i. Site A-- Wheeler East: the East Low Canal divides the site. Several ut7named srnall ponds, both
intermittent and year-round, exist in Se�tion 22 southwsst of the Canal. The ponds drain into
exist�ng agricultural drainageways and wasteways. Wekland areas are shown in Figure 2. �.
2. Sfte B— Ephrata Atrport North: Ephrata Lake, a nattzrai seeg lake fed by groundwater.
3. Site C— Beverly Bur&e: the Wsst Canal divides the site. A small wetland area is present at the
southern portian of the site as shawn in Figure �. -George Lake and Martha Lake iie to the east
of the sice.
4, Site D�- Martin: the West Canal divides the site.
Ths,Eas# Low Canal and the West Canal are part of the larger Columbia Basin Irrigation Project
supplying iarigation water ta rnuch of Grant County, Other canals and wasteways serve the urigated
craplands of the �olumbia Basin Praject.
Source: National Wetland Inventary raaps mc�intained by Grant Caunty Current Ptanning
I�epartmen#.
2) W111 the grojeet require any w�rk over, in, or adjacent to {r�ithin Z00 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and sitach avaiiable plans.
Does nat appiy to this nan-pro}ect actian.
The . County will consider the impacts af industriai deveiopment and may requ�ire appzapriate
mitigatiun based upon plans, palicies, n�1es and regulations in effect at the time of develop�nent.
Impacts af future development activiries, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA
rules, the Grant County Shoreliae Management Program, Resource Lands and Critical Areas �
ordinance, and other pertinent devcloptYaent zegvlations w�en propasals for future development are
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Devedopments � ; PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLtST
received. The County will cansider the impacts of industrial devefopment and may require
appropriate mirigation based upnn plans, palicies, rules and re�elarians in effect at the time of
develnpment.
3} Estimate the amount of �Il and dredge material that �voulc3 be piaced in or removed fronn
surface water or wettands and indicate the area of the site that �vauid be affected. Indicate the
saurce of iill materiaL
Does nat apply to this non-prpject actioa.
The County wiit cansider the impacts of industrial deveiopment and rnay require appropriate
cnitigation based upon ptans, poiicies, ruies and regularions in effect at the tirne of developrnent.
Impacts af furiue development activzries, if any, wiil be evaluated in accordanca with the SEPA
ruies, t41e Grant Caunty Shoreiine 1rlanagement Program, Resaurce Lands and Criticai Areas
ardinance, and other gertinent development regulations when proposals for future development are
reeeived. Any proposed filling of wetland areas will be reviewed and regulated in accordance with
Arrny Corps of Engineers, Department nf Ecology, and local regulations.
4) `Viil the proposai require surface water withdrawais or diversions? Give generai description.
pacpose. and approximate quantities ii kzzown.
Does nat apply to this non-project acrion.
Future industnal development at the sites designated for znajor industrial development as a result of
this actian may require surface waCer withdrawals or diversions. Site improvements far i,ndustrial
deveiopment are tikaly to include surface water controi systems resutting in surface water
diversior�.
Water supply may be reqnired for drinking, industrial (process), and fire suppression put�aoses.
Saurce of water may be municipal water suppiy systems, surface water withdrawal, or groundwater
withdrawal. As discussed below, quanrities of water required to serve industrial use are highly
variable depending on the type of industry served.
If znunicipal ar groundwater saurces ara not available in sufficient quantity or quality, s,urface water
sauress may be utiiized. However, due to iimi.ted surface water supglies in the vicinity af any of the
four potential sites, suzfa�e watcr withdrawal is cansider�d limited.
5) Does the proposai lie w'rthin a 100�year floodplain? If so, nate location on the site p(an.
I. Site A— Wheeler East: No.
2. Site B— Ephrara Afrpart North: No.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: No.
4. Site D— Martin: No.
Source: Fload Insurance Rate Maps for Cirant Cnunty, Washingtan, FEMti, Septeml�er 30, 198&.
6) Does the proposal invalve any discharges of waste ma#erials to surface waters? If sa, describe
the type oC waste and anticipated volume oi discharge.
Does not apply to this non-project action,
Iridustrial sites that may be developed subsequent to this actian typicaliy require discharge of
wastes, both salzd and liquid. Wastewater discharge can vary widely depending upon the type of
Granr County December 1999
Mafor Industriai Devslopments 7 PCI
ENViRtJNMENTAL CNECKLIST
-�� industry. The anticipated flows are di£ficult ta predict� and rreatment and disposal methnds become
rnore camglex as the flow increases. Wastewater flow from warehouse type faciliries that occupy a
lot of landq but have relatively few employees can be small. But for "wet" industries such as food t,
processi�g, the ftaws can be quite large.
Discharge of waste�ater rnay be to municipai sewer systezns, ta an-site treatment systems, or
thraugh spray appiication of treated wastewater. Industrial prooesses may also reuse wastewater.
Discharge, if any, of wastewater Co surface waters proposed by future deveiopm,ent related to this
actian would be treated effluent meeting secondary discharge standards simiiar ta municipaF
treatment systems, as regulated by th� Deparm�ent of Ecoiogy. Any such discharge will be
evaluated in accozdanee with tt�e SEPA rules, the Grant County Shazeiine Management Program,
Resource Lands and Crirical Areas orctin�nce, and other gertinent development regulatiazxs.
b. Ground;
1) Will ground water be w�ithd�rawn, or wiil water be discharged to groand waier? Giva generai
description, purpose, and approaimate quaniitiss if known. y.
Daes not apply to this t�on-project action.
Industrial sites that rnay be deveioped subsequent to this action may require both withdrawal from
(water supply) and discharge to (wastewatex) groundwater. '
Withdrawat (Water Supply): Water supply may be required for c�rinicisig, izzdustr°iai (proeess}, and
ivice suppression purposesa �
Potable vvater dsmands faz industrial sites are typically a small percentage of process water and iue
supgression nceds. Water dernands for industrial sites are highly variable, depending upon the type �
of industrial use. Light indus#rial applicatians such as warehouse distri.bution centers primarily need
only pot�ble water for sanitary needsd Agrieultival processing plants typioally require more than
S,OOQ gallons per day and may requixc millions of gallons per day. Fire suppression quantities are
typically supplemental to che patabte and process needs since it is usually kept in reserve and
provided by pumping or eievated storage. Starage requirements can range from a few hundred
tb,ousand ta over on� mill:ion gallanss ,
Th� Washington State Department of Ecology regulates the quantity of water far all uses. Water
rights permits are required prior to any beneficial watet use greater than 5,000 ga��gz�s per day. Us�
af groundwater up ta 5,000 gallons per day fox damestic or uzdustrial use is exempted from the
. Water Right Permit process under RCW 94.44.4SU.
Source of cvater may be municipal water supply systems, surface wa#er withdrawal, or groundwater
withdrawal. Municipal water supply systems exist in the generai vicinity of each of the four
potential sites. Mutucipal water supply may or may not be made available by jurisdictional
pror+iders. Availability nf groundwater in �he vicinity of the sites has not been detszmined but it is
expected that groundwater is avai2able at each of th� sites to serve damestic uses up to S,4QQ
gallans per day. Water system development for industrial apglicatzans with demand below S,40Q
gallons per day may use groundwater if quantity and quality is adequate. Larger demands rnay use
surface water withdrawais, if available, or may seek new water rights or transfer of an existing
• water right.
Onc potcnaal source of water for Site B— Epivata Airport Nart�a may be via the Bureau of
Recla�mation Cotumbia Basin Prajeat. 'ihe Bureau annteaiiy withdsaws about 14 million gallons af
groundwater per day ta help prevent intnisian of Froject graundwater into the natural waters of
Soap Lake. Withdrawn water fs pcu�ped into tke West Low Canal. During irrigarion periods, the �
. withdrawn water suppiements Projecz water. When isri�ation is not taking place, the water m.ust
�.._o �� �.o —
firanz Caunty December 1999
Majvr Industrial Developments 8 FCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
srill be discharged to the West Low Canal, making canal maintenance normally performed in dry
condirions more difficult and costly. Generally, the Bureau would pteter alternate use of the
withdrawn water. The Bureau mav authorize utilization of some of the withdrawn water for
industrial applications. If made available, this pumped water could feasibly be diverted to an
existing surface water body or other storage for industrial use.
Discharge (Wastewaterl: Discharge of wastewater to the groundwater may occur throueh on-site
septic systems for "dry" industrial appiications having primarily employee sanitary x�eeds. Due to
flow limitarions, on-site systems may not be suitable for higher demand, "wet" industries. Water
discharged to recharge groundwater must meet drinking water quality standards. This could be
accomplished through advanced treatment systems.
Any withdrawal of or discharge to ground water will be evaluated in accordance with the. SEPA
rules, Department of Ecology, Department of Health, and other pertinent jurisdicrional regularions.
2) Describe waste nnaterial that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industriai. containing the following chemicals
...; agricultural: etc.). Describe the general size of the system. the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or i►umans the
system(s) are expected to serve.
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. See above discussions regarding potential discharge of
wastewater from future industrial development that may result from this action.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Desewibe the source of runoff (including stoem water) and method of collection and disposal, ,
if xny (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Docs not apply to this non-project action.
Future industrial development at the sites designated for major industrial development as a result of
this action are likely to result in increased storm water runoff from additional impervious surfaces.
Site improvements are iikely to include surface water control measures to control the quanrity and
quality of runoff.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply to this non-project acrion.
Fuhue industrial development at the sites designated for majos industrial development as a result of
this action may result in discharges of wastewater or stormwater to ground or surface watets. See
wastewater discharge discussions above. During construcrion, silt and other waste materials will be
contained using best management pracrices as may be required by jurisdictional regulatory
agencies. �
Discharge, if any, of waste materials to surface or ground waters proposed by future development
related to this acrioa will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant County
Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, and other pertinent
development regulations. The County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may
require appropriate mirigation based upon plans, policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time
of development.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground. and runoff water impacts, if any:
Grant Counry December 1999
Major fndustrial Developments 9 PCI
ENVIRCiiVM�NTAL CHEClCLtST
Does not apply to this non-projecc action.
Fui�ue industrial developrnent at the sites designated for major industrial development as a result af this
action wi�I empiay appropriate measures that comply with applicabie local, State and federal regulatians �.
for reducing and/ar contralling surface, groand and runoff water unpacts. impaczs of future development,
if any, will be evaluated in accardance with the SEPA rules, the Grant Caunty Shoreline i�tanagement
Prograrn, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, anci other pez°tinent deveiopmcnt regulations
when praposals for future deveiopment are received. The Cauniy will consider the impacts of industriai
development and may require appropriats mirigarion based upon plans, poiicies, ruies and re�ulations in
effect at the rime of developrnent.
4. PIauts
a. Check or circle types af vegetation found on #he site, and descrihe:
deciduous tree: aider, mapie, aspes�, o#her
e�ergreen tree: �r, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plauts: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water iily, eeigrass, milfoii, other
other types ai vegetation
The majoriiy of Grant Caunty is native rangeland characterizad by shrub-steppe vegetation comprised rnainly � �
of grasses, forbs, and sl�rubs. Th� structure af this plant comrnunity is open grass with scattered shntbs. Big
sagebzush is the rnajor shrub species. Since the development of the Columbia Basin Irrigatian Project, much of
khc County is currently in crop production.
Site-specific vegetation is described below.
f. Site A— Y�'heeler East: except for that area west of the community of Wheeler, most of the site is currently
vegetated with agricultural craps.
2. Site B— Ephratu �4irport North. vegetation is predominantiy shzub-steppe, subject to past grazing activities.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: vegetation in gortions of the site is irrigated, cultavated czops; a laxge area is a
feedlot.
4, Site D— Martin: except �or the sauthwest portion of the site, the sit� is currently vegetated with 'trrigated,
cultivatsd crops.
Adclirional site analysis ta identify plant species will be conducted as part of site-specific development
praposals related to future developxne�t of any sites designated as master planuefl locations for major industrial
developznent.
b. What kind and am�ount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Dces nat appty to this nan-prajeat acti�n.
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Develapments 10 PG7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Future industnal development at the sites designated for major industrial development as a result of this action
is likely to result in removal of unknown quantities of vegetation for site improvements.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
�Io special status plants are expected to occur at any of the sites, as almost all of these lands have been
converted from native plant communities to agricultural use. Although Site B— Ephrata Airport North has not
been converted to agricultural uses, it has been grazed in the past.
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the Priority Habitat and Species (PH5)
program, which idenrifies species that have pnority for protecrion because of concern for their population
status and their sensitivity to habitat alterarion. Priority habitats are significant for wiidlife. Based on PHS
records maintained by the Grant County Current Planning Department, areas of priority habitat and pnoriry
species occurrence are shown on Figures 2 through 5 for each of the potenrial sites.
While this PHS information was used in comparing and evaluating the sites for designarion as a master
planned locarion for major industrial development, no surveys of the sites were conducted to detemiine
locarions of special staius plants or animals. Due to the presence of priority habitat or prionty species, areas of
the sites may be considered crirical areas under Grant County Resource Lands and Crirical Areas ordinance.
Future development at these sites will be subject to the site analysis and development standards for fish and
wildlife habitat conservarion areas under that ordinance.
Additional site analysis to identify endangered, threatened, candidate, monitor, sensitive and priority species
will be conducted as part of site-specific development proposals related to future development of any sites
designated as master planned locations for major industrial development. Impacts of futuxe development, if
any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent development regulations when
proposals for future development are received.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: `
Does not apply to this non-project acrion.
Future development related to this acrion may result in modifications to site plant communities. Impacts of
future development, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the 5EPA rules and other pertinent
development regularions when proposals for fizture development are received. The County will consider the
impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate mirigation based upon platts, poiicies, rules and
regularions in effect at the tisne of development. The enforcement of the Grant County Resource Lands and
Critical Areas ordinance to future develop�ent of the sites will ensure continuation of baseline populations for
all endangered, threatened, candidate, monitor, sensitive and priority species.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site and describe:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, hesring, shellfish, other:
The majos plant commuaity in the area of the potential sites is agricultural, which is generally of less
value as habitat to native wildli£e than is native habitats. Agricultural land provides habitat for a few
species, including geese, mallards, northem harrier, ring-necked pheasant, grey partridge, homed lark,
deer mouse, montane vole, badger, and mule deer. The shrub=steppe habitat, dominated by sagebrush,
Grant Countv � December 1999
Major Industrial Developrnents / 1 pCl
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
serves more than 7Q species, including the sa�e sparrow and sage thrasher. Wetland habitat in the area
pravides habitat for mare than 25 species of waterfowi.
Additianal site analysis to identify endangered, threatened, candidate, monitar, sensitive and priority '�`.
speciss will be conducted as part of site-specific develnpment proposals related to future davelopment of
any sites designated as m.aster planned lacations far major industrial development.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or neaa° the site.
Priority speoies occurrences are dacumented for Szte A— Wheeler East aud Site C— Beverly Burke, as
shown it� Pigures 2 and 4.
Additianal site analysis to identify endangered, threatened, candidat�, monitor, senszrive and priority
speeies will be conducted as part of site-specific development proposals related to future development of
any sites designated as zziaster planned iocarions for major industrial developrnent.
c. Is the site part of a migratioxt route? If so, expfain.
Wildlifs migrarioa routes exist thraughout Grant County, Many species of birds farage and rest in the
agricultural �elds and streamside areas near the propased sites. Additional site analysis to idenrify the
locatian of migration rautas and their relationship to proposed indusirial development will be conducted
as parC of site-spec�c development proposals related to future development of any sites dasignated as
master planned locations fpr majar industrial develapment,
d. Propased me�sures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if anyz
Daes not apply to this nan-project act�an.
Future development retated to this action may result in modifacatidns to site piant communities. impacts
of future deveiopment, if any, witi be evaivated in accardance with the SEPA ruies and athsr p�rtinent �
development regc:iations when prc�posals for futuze develapment are received. Ths County will cansider
the impacts of industrial development and rnay require appropriate mirigation based upon pEans, policies,
nales and reguiations in effect at the timc of deveiopment. The enforcement of the Grant Coun;ty
Resource Lands and Criticat Areas ordinance to futiue development of the sites will ensure continuation
of baseiine papulations for all endangered, ihreatened, candidate, monitor, sensirive and priority species.
6. Energy and Natnrat Resources
:�r�::�.
a. What kinds uf energy (eleciric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, sotar) wiiI be used to meet the
completed pxoject's energy needs? Describe whether it wiii be used for heating, rttanufacturing, etco
Does nat apply to this non-project action.
Fuinue deveiopment re�ated to this actian wiil result in both temporary and pezmanent energy
requirements. During canstrucdon af furiue improvements, fuel and electricity will be required.
Bleetrical power, fuel, solar andlor natural gas may be required to serve the needs of futtiue industrial
developme^nt.
b. Would your project affeet the potential use of sular energy by adjacent properties? Tf so, generaily
describe.
Does not apply ta this non-project acriou. Futu�c industrial development as a result of thia action is
expected to have muninnai effect on the patential use of sotar energy at ar neax the potentiai sites.
c. What kinds af energy conservatiau featuras are included in the plans of this groposal? Ltst other
proposed rneasnres to reduce or control en�rgy impacts, if �ny: �
Grant County December 1999
Mu,jvr Industrial �evelopments IZ PCI
ENVIRONMENiAL CHECKLIST
Does not apply to this non-project action.
In selecrion of potential sites for designation as master planned locarion for major industrial
development, evaluation criteria included consideration oi the proxvnity and capacity of natural gas and
electrical power. All sttuctures would be built in conformance �vith County building code and state
energy code requirements.
Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards. including exposure to toxic chemicals. risk of fire and
egplosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that couid occur as a resuit of this proposal? If so. describe.
Does not apply to this non-project acrion.
Future industrial development that may occur as a result of this action may use hazardous materials or
potential contaminants in industrial applicarions or may have similar materials as a waste byproduct. The
type or amount of such materials cannot be defined at this time.
The potenrial hazards associated with materials used during construcrion will be mirigated by following
construcrion safety requiremenu found in Washington Administrarive Code 296-155 and 29 CFR 1926
(OSHA).
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. Emergency services for the sites are currently provided
through Grant County Fire Districts. Futtue industrial development that may occur as a result of
this action will employ appropriate measures of emergency response. Such measures could include
emergency spill response programs. •
If, during the operatiott of any future facility developed as a result of this non-project acrion, any
substance listed in 40 CFR 302 is released to the environment, the developer will be required to
notify the National Response Center, U.S. EPA, and the Washington State Department of Ecology
as required under Secrion 101 (14) of the Comprehensive environmental Response Compensarion
Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) RCW 70.1O5D and WAC
173-340.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards. if any:
Future industrial development, including constzucrion and operarion activiries, will employ
appropriate measures that comply with applicable local, State and federal regularions for managing
potential environmental health hazards. Any dangerous wastes generated by future faciliries will be
managed by the developer to ensure compliance with the Washington Dangerous Waste Regulation
(WAC 173-303).
Impacts of future development, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and
other pertinent development regulations when proposals for future development are received. The
County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate mitigation
based upon plans, policies, rules and regularions in effect at the time of deyelopment.
b. ivoise
1) What types of noise eaist in the area which may affect your project (for ezample: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)T
None.
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industrtal Developments 13 PCI
ENVIRdNMEMTAL CHECKLIaT
■ � ■ ��i��r i
2} 1�'Vhat types and levels of rtoise would be created by or assaciated with the Qraject on a short-
Yerm or a long-terrn basis (for example: traf�c. construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
liours noise would come from the site. �r
Does nat apply ta this nan-project action.
Future industriai deveiogment that may accur as a result of this action rnay generate addirional
naise from operating equigment during construcrion nf infrastructure and faciliries. Construcrion
activities would be temporary in nature and are anricipated to occur during normal daytime woxtcing
hours. Noise may also be genexated during operation of future industriai develapment. The levei,
frequency and�duration of such naise cannot be futly defuzed at this tim�.
3) Proposed measures to reduce ar controi naise impatts, if anys
Does not agply to this non-graject action.
Future industrial develapment will employ appropriate measures that comply with applicable lacal9
State and fedezai regulatians for Gonuolling noise. Impacts of future development, if any, will bs
evaivated in accordance with the SEPA ruies and other pertinent deveiopment regulations when
proposais for future deveiapment are received. The County wiil consider the .impacts of industrial
deveiogrnent and may require appropriate mitigarion based upon plans, policies, 'rules and
regulations in �ffect at the time of developrnent.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. VVt�at is the carrent use of the site and adjacent groperties?
The dominant land uses in Grant County are agriculture, rangeland, public lands, and open space. Other
land uses iuclude niral residential, industrial and cornrneacial. Sita-specific laad uses are as £ollows: �
1. Site A— Wheeler East: currenc land uses within the boundary include indusirial and irrigated
agriculture. Adjacent properties include those in agriculturai and i7ndustrial use. Althougla zoned as
indastriai, tha community af Wheeler is a mix of commercial and residential use>
2. .SiPe i3 — Ephrata Airporr Narth.• laud within the baundary is currently vacant and unimproved.
Adjacent propsrties include the Ephrata Airport North (a Generai Aviation facility), vacant,
uni.mproved land, and rangeland.
:�����..
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: current land uses withi� the boundary include a feedlat, irrigated agriculture,
and small parceis of iudustriai and commezciai, Adjacent groperties inciude agriculiura.l, residential
and comznexciat areas in the Town of George UGA, and vacant, unimproved land.
4. Site 17 -� Martin: current land use within the boundary is entirely irrigated agriculture. Adjacent
propexties include those in agricultuxal and industrial use (within the City of Bphrata UGA}.
b. Has the site been used fcor agricaiture? If so, rdescribe.
l. Sits A— Whesler East: exce}at for the commutsity af Wheeler and land lying to the west of the
community, this site is or was in cultivated agriculhu°al use since the Coiumbia Basin Project was
campleted. That porrion of the site lying west of the East Low Canal is within the First Haif of the
Colutnbia Basin Projeet and is currently irrigated. A v'arieiy af crops have been grawn on � seasonai
basis, including patataes and sugar beots. That portian of the site lying east of the East Low Canal is
within the proposed Second Half of tiie �olumbia Basin Prajeet. Partions of this area are irrigated. A
variety of crops have been grown on a seasvnai basis, inciuding vegetables, srnall grains, and forage
crops. �
I � _
Grant Caunry December 1999
hiu,jor Indusi�°ial 1?evelopments 14 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Z. Site B— Ephrata Airport �Vorth; Portions of the site have historically been used for grazing, but not
cultivated crops.
?. Site C— Beveriy Burke: portions of the site are currently used for cultivated crops, primarily
vegetables and forage crops.
�. Site D— Martin; the site is currently in cultivated agricultural use. A variety of crops have been
grown on a seasonal basis, including vegetables, small grains, and forage crops.
c. Describe anv structures on the site.
A detailed survey of site structures has not been completed. The following generally describe those
structures believed to exist.
1. Site A— Wheeler East: existing structures include the East Low Canal, the Burlington Northern
Raikoad, numerous industriallcommercial structures north of Wheeler Road, small farm-related
structures, and irrigarion facilities.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airporr North: There are no structures on the site.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: e:cisting structures include the Burke electrical substation, feedlot structures,
small farm-related structures, irrigarion facilities, the West Canal, and a few farmhouses.
4. Site D— Martin: existing structures include the West Canal, the Burlington Northern Railroad, small
farm-related structures, irrigarion facilities, and a few farmhouses.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply to this non-project action.
Future industrial development may result in structtue demolition. Impacts of future development, if any,
will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent development regularions when
proposals for future development are received. The County will consider the impacts of industrial
development and may require appropriate mirigation based upon plans, policies, rules and regulations in
effect at the time of development.
e. What is the current land-use district classification of the site?
Based on the Grant County Zoning Ordinance, which is based on the 1977 Couaty Comprehensive Plan:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: two areas are zoned "Heavy Industnal"; one area is about 77 acres, the other is
about 192 acres. One 49-acre area is zoned "Light Industrial".
2, Site B— Ephrata Airport North: one parcel is zoned "Heavy Industrial" and is about 482 acres in size;
one 10-acre parcel is zoned "Suburban — 2". A 40-acre Planned Unit Development also lies within the
boundary.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: two parcels are zoned "Commercial — Freeway Service"; one parcel is zoned
"General Commercial"; one pazcel is zoned "Light Industrial"; the remainder is zoned "Agriculture".
The Light Industnal parcel is 9.9 acres. The Commercial — Freeway Service parcels are 1.4 and 41.6
acres in size. The Getteral Commercial parcel is 7.4 acres.
4. Site D — Martin: "Agriculture".
f. V6'hat is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 1 S pCl
ENVIRC}13MENTAL CHECKLIBT
'` Based on the Grant County Comprehensive Plan adapted in September 1999:
1, Site A– Wheeler �ast: the �reas are zoned "Heavy Industrial" and "Light Fndustrial" are designated as
"Industrial" in the Compxehensive Plan. ihe remainder of the site is designated as "Irrigated
Agricuitura.,,
2, Site B– Ephrata Airport North: the areas zoned "Heavy Industrial" are designated "Industrial." The
area zoned "Suburban – 2" is designatsd "Rural Residential 2." The area south and east of the
Industrial area is designated as "Rural Remote." The rernaindex o� the area is designated as "Rurai
Residen.tial I."
3. Site C` –�everty Burke: the areas zaned "C�mmerciai – Freewav Service" and "General Cammercial"
are desiguated as "Commercial" in the Cornprehensiv� Plan. Ths area zoned "Light Industrial" is
designated as "Industrial." The remaisider is designated as "Irrigated Agriculture," '
4. Site D-- Martin: "The entire azea is designated as "Itrigated Agriculture."
g, If appiicabie, what is the carrent shvreline master pragram designation of the site?
Nons of the site are currentiy within 244 feet of a designated shareline in Che shoreline master program.
h. Has any part of th� site been classified as an "environmentallv sensitive" area? If so, specifv,
Na physical surveys hav� been conducted of the sites to examine for the presence af enviranmentaily
sensitive areas. However, based on review af rnapping maintained by the Grant Caunty Cunent Planning
I}epazrtment, pflrtions of each site �re expected to contaui areas that would be designated as "critical
arcas" under the Grant County Resource Land and Crirical Areas Ordinance. Crirical areas include
wetlazrds and fish and wildlife Priority Habitat and Priority Species Occurrence areas. Based on reaords
maintained by the Grant County Current Pia�xuing Departrnent, potential critical axeas are shown an �
Figtues 2 through S for each of the potential sites.
The Washingtan State Department af Fish and Wildlifa manages the Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
grogram, which identifies species that have priority far protection because of concsrn for their populatioa
status and their sensitivity to habitat �lteration. Priority habi#ats are sigttificant for wildlife.
While this PHS inforrnation was used in comparing and evaluatine the sites far designation as a master
planned location for major indusmial development, no surveys of the sites were conciucted to determine
k._ ,
locarions o£ special status plants or animals. Due to� the presence of priariiy habitat ar''�riorztv species,
areas of the sites may be cansidered critical areas under Grant County Resource Lauds and C�itical Areas
ordinanoe. Futur$ dcveloprnent at these sites will be subject to the site analysis and development
standards for fish and wildlife habitat conssrvarion areas under that ordinance. Impacts of future
development, if any, will be evaluated izi accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent
development regulations when proposals for future development are received.
Addidonal site analysis to identify criticai areas wiil $e canducted as part of site-specific development
proposais reiated to future develapment of any sitss designated as master planned locations for anajor
industriai deveiapmen�
i. Agprozimately horv cnany people would reside or work in the completed project?
The current population within the four potential sites for designatian as a master planned locarion for
major industriat develapment xs unktiown, but expec#ed ta be very iaw. Puture residentlal develapment
within designated sites would be restrieted to very low density ar prolu'bited. The level of worker
population cannot be determined at this time, and may vary cansiderably based on the type of industry
develaped. Typical worker popularion for izidustrial sites as published in reference texts varies from 5 to �
15 pezsons per acre.
Grant County �—�� December 1999
Major Industrial Develapments 16 PCl
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
j. .�.pproximately how many people would the completed project displace?
This non-project action will not directly result in displacements. Future industrial development may
result in acquisirion of unknown quanriries of habitable land and displacement of some residences.
Converston of agricultural land to industrial use would also result in some displacement of farmworkers,
but a net increase in employment is expected.
k. Praposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
This non-project action will not directly result in displacements. Sites have been idenrified and evaluated
based partially on their minimal unpacts to existing residential development. For the most part, the
potenrial sites are not currently occupied.
The impact of fuiure industrial development on displacement can be minimi�ed by development on
uninhabited portions of the designated master planned locarions for major industrial development.
Impacts of futtue development, if any, �vill be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other
pertinent development regulations when proposals for future development are received. The County will
consider the unpacts of industrial development and may require appropriate mitigarion based upon plans,
policies, rules and regularions in effect at the time of development.
l. Proposed measu�es to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Sites have been identified and evaluated based� partially on their consistency and comparibility with site
and adjacent land uses and Comprehensive Plan designations.
Designarion of master planned lacarions for major industrial development recognizes the County's need
for industrial lands and its associated property tax revenue for long term viability of service provision.
Designation is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.367. Site development and desi�n
requirements will ensure that:
1. Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent nonurban areas;
2. Development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent
nonurban areas;
3. Provision is made to miugate advexse impa,cts on designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and
mineral resource lands; and
4. The plan for major industrial development is consistent with the County's development regulations
established for protection of crirical areas.
Impacts of future development, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other
pertinent development regularions when proposals for fiature development are received. The County will
consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate mirigation based upon plans,
policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time of development.
9. Housing
a. AQprosimately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle. or low-
income housinge
No housing would be provided as a direct result of this non-project action. Future industrial development
may result in a cumulative total estimate of 18,317 new jobs (See Item 15 — Public Services for
discussion). Applying an in-migration factor of 50% results in 9,158 new residents to Grant County.
Based on a household size of 2.74 persons per household (1990 US Census for all of Grant County),
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrtal Developments 17 � P�l
ENVIRQNMENTAL CHECK!_!ST
' � there wauld be a need far 3,342 new residences to accommodate' the projected in-migranon ta the
County.
b. rlppraxiznate�y haw many units, if any, wauld be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middIe, ar �
low-income housing.
This non-project action will not directly result in displacements. Sites have been idenrified and evatuated
based partially on their minimal impacts to existing residential development. For the most part, the
potential sites includ� few resideniial units.
The unpact of future industriat development on any existing housing units is unlcnown, but wiii be
evaluated at the time of develapment. The impact of futurs industrial development on existing housing
can be rnuumized by development on uninhabited portians af the designated master plann.ed locarions for
major industrial d�velapment.
c, Proposed measures to reduce or controi housing impacts. if any:
Does nat appiy to this ngn-project action.
The impact of future industrial deveiopment is not expected ta have a significant irnpact o�::hausing. Few
houses are iocatsd on or near the potenria! sites. There are na existing housing units on or adjacent to Site
D� Martin. Site A� Whseler East is located nearby thc commu.nity of Wheeler which has severai
residential housing units. Site B� Ephrata Airport North is lacated iin�ediately south of the residential
comtnunity of Grant �rchards. Site C— Beveriy Burke contains one hausing unit and is nearby the Town
of Geargs which has residenrial units.
Adequate housing %r populatian in-migration resu�ting fram furiue industrial development is expected to
be accam�aodated by existing and new dwelliug units in both the rural and urban growth areas desfgnated
for reside�dal development. Adequate lan.ds have been designated in the Grant Caunty Camprehensive �
Plan to acaommodate the potential 3,342 new houses estin�ated to result from future industrial
development. The combined housing capacity of both rural and urban gtowth area xesidenrial lands is
26,682 hauses; new housing required based an population projections is I I,883. This excess residentaal
land capacity equal to 14,799 dwelling units, more than enou�h ta accommodate the required additianal
3,342 houses due to industriai deveiopment.
Designation of an area as a master planned location for major industriai devslapment will resuit in
devetopment regulations that prohibit ox miriir„i�e the potenrial for future residenrial development.
Developmenc re�ularions are also expected to impose site design and developmene standards, inciuding
huffer requirements, iatended to minimiz� the imgacts to adjacent residential areas. _..
Impacts af iuture development, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other
pertinent develapznent regulations when propasals for futtue development are received. The Cnunty wiil
consider the impacts of indusiriai development and may require appxopt�ate mitigatian based upon plans,
policies, rutes and regulations in effect at the time of development.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the taltest hefght of any praposed structure(s), not including an#ennas; what is the
ptincipai exterior build'ang materia!(s) propos�d? .
Does not apply to this non-pxoject actian.
New structures will lil�ely_ be constructed as a result of this action. I3esign detaiis witl not be known until
sp�cific deveiopm�nt pxoposai� are rec�ived.
b. What views f� the immediate vicinity would be altered or abstructed? �
Grant �'ounty Liecember 1999
Mujor Industria! Develnpments 18 PGI
EiVVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The impact on views will not be known until specific development proposals are received. However, in
selecrion of potenrial sites for designation as master planned location for major industrial development.
evaluation criteria included consideration of the impact on views of neighboring urban and rural lands.
Plantings, fences and berms to screen and secure future industrial development may alter views in tk�e
immediate vicinity of the sites.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
New facility designs will incorporate appropnate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, as
required by jurisdictional agencies. Impacts of future development, if any, will be evaluated in
accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent development regulations when proposals for future
development are received. The County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may
require appropriate mitigation based upon plans, policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time of
development.
11. Light and Glare
a. �Vhat type of light or giare will the proposai groduce? What time of day wouid it mainiy occur?
Does not apply to this non-project action. New sources of lighC and glare from iuture industrial
development that may occur as a result of this acrion will be identified when specific development
proposals are received. Typical sources associated with industrial developrnent include general outdoor
illumination in operating areas, stairs and platforms, roadways, parking areas, and storage areas.
b. Could light or giare from the tinished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
Does not apply to this non-project acrion. New sources of light and glare from future industrial
development that may occur as a result of this acrion will be identified when specific development
proposals are received. Light and glare impacts are expected to be minimal. Because of the relatively flat
topography of the sites, some lights may be seen by' distant or elevated viewers, but impacts caused by
lighting, if any, are expected to be negligible.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or giare nnay affeet your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. if any:
Does not apply to this non-project action.
New facility designs will incorporate appropriate measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
as required by jurisdicrional agencies. Measures could include the use of nonreflective paints, adjusting
light direcrions, and the use of screening devices such as plantings and berms.
Impacts, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules and other pertinent development
regulations. The County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate
mitigarion based upon plans, policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time of development.
12. Reereatiori
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
There are no designated recreational opportuniries on any of the four potenrial sites. No parks or
recrearional facilities are within one mile of Site A— Wheeler East or Site B— Ephrata Airport North.
Grant County December l999
Major IndusMal Developments 19 pCl
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
�..���� �����.�����..�.���..��
' There is one park, Town ParklCommunity Hail Park within one miie af Site C— Beveriy Burlce.
Faciiiiies include playground equipment, picnic tabies and a stage.
There are several parJcs within. the City of Quincy that are within one mile of Site D— �vlaz�irs, including �
East Park, Quincy South Park, McConnel Park. Quincy i�iorth Park, and R�servair Park. Facilities are
describec3 in the Ciry of Quincy Comprehensive Plan, 1996-2416, adopted Maxch 1996.
b. �Vould the proposed Qroject disptace any existing recreational uses? if so, describe.
�
c. Proposed measuras to reduce or cantroi impacts on recreation. including recreation apportunities
to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Nat applicable to this non-praject acrion.
13. Historic and Culte�ral Preservation
a. Arc there any piaces or abjects listed an, or proposed %r, natianal, state, or Iocal preservation
registers icnown to be on or ne�t to the site? If sar, generaIly describe.
No detail�d iield surveys were conducted as part of this non-praject action. Czrant County has a rich
cuitural heritage, and many signzficant cultura�l resaurces are found thraughout the County.
Based on data obtained from the Washington State Offiee of Archaeoiogy and Historic Preservarion
(OAHP}, Grant County maintains a�ap showing sections of land that may contain signiiicant cultural
resources. Actual lacation of such resauxces within a parkicular section are not mapped, but must be
determined through detailed site archaeolagicat analysis and consultatian with OAHP and tribai agencies.
Based an review af mapping maintained by the Grant County Current Planning Department, no historic �
or auitural resources are expectad to be present an any of the four potential sites. Culttuai sites are
expected ta occur withzn five miies af Sita C— Beverly Burke and Site B— Ephrata Airport 1�Jorth.
Additianal sit� analysis to identify cultural and historic resources will be conducted as part of site-
speci�c developmant prnpasals retated to fuhue development of any sites designated as master planzied
Iocarions for major industrial deveiopmenta In addition, Grant Caunty intends to deveiap a,Cultural
Rssaurce Lands Map and Database as part af its ongoing comprehensive planning efforts. The map and
database will be developed through assistance o£ a Cuttural Resource Task Force. eomp�ised of citizens,
Wanapum Band of Indians, CfAHP, DNR, Grant Caunty PUD and athers. ., :
ba Generally describe any landmarks or ee�idence of historic, archaeoiogicaf, scientifc, or cultural
impor#ance knawa to be on or next to #he site.
No detaiied field surveys wers conduoted as part of this non-project action. Landmarks and evidence of
historiaal and aultural significance exist within Grant Coun4y. Additionat sit� analysis ta identafy cultival
and historic zasources wili be conducted as part of site-specific development proposals reiated to future
development of any sites designated as master planned locarions for major industrial developmant.
c. Fropased measures to reduce or cantrol itnpacts, if any:
This non-project actian is not sxpected to impact cultu�I or historical resauac�s. Future indus�riai ,
devslogment that may result from this non-project action is also not expected ta innpact such resaurces.
Additianal site auaiysis to iden.tify cuiturai and historic resaurces will be conducted as part of site«
speci�c development prapasals related to futtue development of any sites designated as master planned
loca�tions for tnajor industrial devclapment, �
Grant County Decem6er 1999
Mc�jor Induszriat Developments Zp PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Impacts of future development acriviries, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the
Grant County Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands and Crirical Areas ordinance, and other
pertinent development regulations when proposals for future development are .received. The County will
consider the impacts of industrial development and may rec{uire appropriate mirigarion based upon plans,
policies, rules and regulations in effect at the rime ot' development.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing
street system. Show on site Qlans, if any.
A camprehensive inventory of County transportation facilities is provided in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan/EIS. Figure 6, attached, shows the transportarion network serving Grant County and
existing 1998 traffic volumes. Access routes serving the sites are as follows:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: is served by the following County roads: Wheeler Road, O Rbad, P Road,
Road 2 and Road 4, SR 17 can be accessed west along Wheeler Road. I 90 can be accessed south
along O Road.
2. Site B— Ephrara Airport North: is served by SR 17 along the eastern border. SR 28 can be accessed
to the north along SR 17; SR 282 can be accessed to the south along SR 17. I 90 can be accessed
along SR 283 to the southwest or SR 17 to the southeast.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: is served by I 90 in the southeast portion of the site and by Beverly Burke
Road/SR 281.
4. Site D— Martin: is served by County Road 10.5 NW along the northern border; County Road O iuns
� through the site. SR 28 �s along the south border. I 90 can be accessed by taking SR 28 west to SR
281, then south to access near George.
b. Is site currently served by pubiic transit? If not, what is the approaimate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
Public transit is pzovided through the Grant Transit Autharity. None of the sites are currently served
directly by public transit, since the sites are predominantly undeveloped. Public rransit does not serve the
Quincy area; therefore, no service is available near Site D— Martin. Service is provided to George,
Ephrata, Moses Lake and Warden; service is also provided north to Grand Coulee. Therefore, service is
provided to within one mile of Site A— Wheeler East, Site B— Ephrata Airport North, and Site C—
Beverly Burke.
c. How many paricing spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
No pazking spaces will be created by the proposed non-project acrion.
Fufiare industrial development that may result from this non-project acrion will be required to provide
adequate parking to serve employee, visitor and other parking needs in accordance with Grant County
zoning requirements.
d. Will the Qroposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to egisting roads or streets,
not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
Not applicable to this non-project acdon. However, future development at the sites is expected to require
roadway improvements.
Grant County December l999
Major Industrial Developments 21 PCI
ENiOtRONMENTAL CHECKLtST
.���� � �.
Each of the sices are adequateiy served by State Itoutes and Caunty arterials having adequate capacity,
While no new roads are anticigated, future developrnent may requixe improvements to existing roads
depending upc�n the types oi industrial development. Improvements could include increas� in pavement
width, shoulder widenin�, and structural ixnpzovements to provide capacity to accommodate industrial �
loads for a major industriai faciiity.
Level of Service (LOS) is a classificarion used to describe the capacity of a transportation facility. This
measurement campares th� �unnber of vehicies using the facility with the maxunum number of vehicles
the facility is designed eo accamrnodate under prevailing canditious and is expressed by grades from "A"
through "P". LOS A is the best, ar free flowing; LOS F is the worst, or congested. Level of Service
(LCiSj standards far major Caunty roadways ara estabiished in the Grant County Cornprehensive
PIanJEIS. LOS standards far state routes are identified in the Quad Caunty Regianai Transportarion PIan.
T'he present traffic cgnditions on roads serving ttte sites is LOS A,
The GMA and Yhhe Grant County Caznpreheusive Plan/EIS require that naw development be prohibited
unless tcanspoztatian improvemsats to accommodate the impacts of development or funding strategies
for such improvernents are made concurrent with the development or will be %anciaiiy ptanned to be in
ptace withiu six years. If proposed development is expected ta decrease LOS below adopted standa�rds,
transportatian improvements must be mad�. Development rnust provide rnirigation of off-siie �affic
iznpacts,
Based an the estimated trips generated far each site as shown in Table 2 belaw, the failowing irnpacts are
expected:
Wheeler R.oad west of Site A— Wheeler East may have structuxal deficiencies due to high industrial truek
loadings.
l. Site A— Wheeler East: an additiozial 16,320 trips per day wouid result in a total average daily trips in
excess of 2i,000 on Wheeler Raad in 2Q18, resulring in LC?S F based on current capacity. Partions of
Wheeler Road will need to be upgraded to principal artarial standards to accomrnadate esti�tated �
traffic. Improvements rnay alsa be required to O Road NE, aatttough current traffia is very low at
abaut 1,Q00 trips per day. Impaovements may also be required ta SR 17 south of Wheeler Road,
2. Site B— Ephrata Airpart North: an additional 12,4$d trips per day woulct result in a tatal average
daiiy trips in ex��ss of ib,490 on SR I7 in 2418, resulting in LO5 B whzch exceeds established LOS
standards. No impmverrtents appear ta 6e required. Traffic increases at the intersec�io� of �R 17 and
Stratford Road would alsa be exp�rienced due to travel from the site east to Moses Lake and an to I
90. Based on anticipated capac�ty, the 2018 LOS shauld rema�n at LOS A,
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: an additiona14,i6Q trips per day would result in a total average daily trips in
excess of 5,00� on Beverly Burke Road in i018, resuttin� in LCfS A. No improvements appear ta be
required.
4. Site D— Martin; an adtlitionat 4,540 trips per day would result in a total avera�e daity trips in excess
of 9,490 on SR 28 and i t;$40 on SR 281 in 2018, zesuitang in LC?S A an both routes, No
impravements appear to be required.
Because two sites may be designated as rnaster planaed locations far ma�or industriai development, the
impacts of traffic must be evaivated on a cumulative basis. While the transportation system and impacts
ft�Y �nost combinatitans o£ sites �re r�larively independsnt, the designation of both Site A— Wheeier East
and Site B— Eghrata Airport North could have a higher oumulative impact than each site inde�endently,
particutazly on SR 17.
Itnpacts of future developrn�nt act'tvitiea, if any, will be evaluated in aocordance with the SEPA rulcs, khe
Grant County �omprehensive Plan, and ather pertinent develapment xeguiatians wlien pzoposals for
future deveioprz�ent are received. The County wili cotxsider the impaots of industrial development on �
,_�..,_..._w� � ����
Grant County Decemher 1999
Majar Industrial Developments 22 PCI
�
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
traffic and transportation improvements and may require appropnate mitigariun based upon plans,
policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time of development.
e. �Vill the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity o� water, rail, or air transportation'? If so.
generally describe.
�1ot applicable to this non-project action,
Table 1
Industrial Analysis
Gross
Area No. of Employees
Site Cnmpany Location Product (Acres)� Employees' Per Acre
1 Camarion/Nestle Wheeler East Potatoes 34.42 450 13.1
2 ASMI Wheeler East Polysilicon 81.46 400 4.9
3 Basin Frozen Foods Wazden Potatoes 7.32 180 24.6
4 Warden Produce Warden Potatoes 12.89 65 5.0
5 Pacific NW Sugar Wheeler Sugar 179.41 100 0.6
6 ��Iashington Potato Warden Potatoes 3.86 150 20.5
, Skone & Conners Warden Potatoes 10.29 100 13.7
8 Columbia Foods Quincy Vegetables 37.37 250 6,7
9 JR Simplot Quincy Potatoes 53.17 600 11.3
10 Lamb Westin Quincy Potatoes 18.7 450 24.1
11 Inflation Systems, Inc. Airport 100 490 4.9
12 Willamette Industries Wheeler Corrugated 19.7 100 5.1
13 EKA Chemicals Wheeler Sodium chlorate 17.83 45 2.5
-r..._... a��t �� z_dan 6_n
1998 Economtc Profile of Grant County,
Reed Hansen & Associates
` Source: Washington Manufacturers Registry, 1998
Import of raw materials and export of finished products are typical requirements of industrial processes.
Transport of &eight, materials and goods will liltely be performed in the most economical manner, and
may include a combination of water, rail, road and air transportarion. The most predominate mode of
freight transport in Grant Counry is via surface roads; truck-rail mode is used in parts of Grant County.
Sites were idenrified and evaluated partly based on their proximity to rail and air transportarion facilities.
Use of rail mode is expected to be high for Site D— Martin, Site A— Wheeler East, and Site B— Ephrata
Airport North. No rail is available to Site C— Beverly Burke.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes wouid occur.
Not applicable to ttus non-project acrion.
Future industrial development will result in vehicular trips. Trip generarion can be highly variable
depending on the type of industry. Based on data from the Institute of Traffic Engineering Trip
Generarion Manual, vehicle trips range from 2.1 trips per employee for manufacturing facilities to 3.34
trips per employee for industrial parks.
The number of employees is also highly variable depending on the type. of 'vndustry. Typical worker
population for industrial sites as published in reference texts varies from 5 to 15 persons per acre. Based
on a land needs analysis prepared for Lewis Cot�nty (Havee, 1997) a value of 4.5 persons per acre was
used as a basis for industrial land needs. Based on an analysis of thirteen industrial operations in Grant
County (See Table 1), a total of 576 acres were used to employ 3,430 employees, an average of 6.0
Grant Countv December 1999
Major IndusMal Developments 23 PCI
�NVIRQNMENTAL CHECKLlST
employees per acre. Based on 3.34 trips per �mployee and 6.0 emplayees per acre. a total of 20.0 trips
per acre are estimated. Based.on 20 teips per acre, the follawing trip genexarion zs esrimated for each site:
Table 2 �
Est�mated Trip Generat�on
lYet
Gross Developable Bstiraated
Area Area� Trips/ Daidy
Site Nanee (Acres/ (Acres) Acre Tr�`ps�
A Whceler East 2,040 816 "LO 16,320
B Ephrata Airport I,560 624 20 12,480
North
C Beverly Burke 52Q 248 20 4,16d
D Martin 580 232 20 �,640
Net deveiopabte area caicuiated as �i4°lo af gross atea.
Z Estisnated daily Mps equals Net Developable Area multiplied by ZO Mps/acre.
Most likely, indus4riai land tenants witi devalap capital intenszve industries that will operate 20 to 24
hours per day w'rth rnultiple work shifks. While the daily traffic levels wall be within the raii�es described,
the peak-hour volumes will be reduced on locai and regionai transportation facilities beeause of work
shift startfng times occurriag during off-peak hours.
ga Propqsed measures to reduce or control transportation impacis, if any;
Na mitigation required based an this nan-praject action. However, future develapment may requize
improvernents to roads, depending uptin site-specific condit�ons �nd the natuxe and size of the proposed
facilities. Traffc demand managetn�ent practices that may be tequired inciu�e encouraging ind�stries to
aperate on a multipie-shift basis, develop ride-share in�entives, use public transit and park and-ride
fa,cilities, and ta use the rail rtioda to the greatest extent practieable. �
Irnpacts of fuiure deveiopment activities, if any, will be evaluat,�d 'ut accordance with the SEPA rules, the
Graut Coun,ty Comprei�ens3ve Plany and other gertinent developmsnt regulations when proposals for
future develc�pment are received. The Caunty will consider the impacts af industriai develapment on
traffic and �anspartatian and rnay require appropriate mitigation based upon pians, poiicies, rules and
reguiatians in �ffect at the tixne of develapment.
15. P�xblic Secvices
a, Wauid the pr��ect resuit in an in,cre�sed r�eed for public sernic�s (for esamgle: fire prutection,
police protectian, hea�th care, schools, aiher�? if so, generally de�cribe.
��utiue industriai development as a result of this non-prajec� actian is expeated to require additional need
for publ'ac services. Construction activities necessary to d$velop infrastructwre and sita improvements for
the sites may result in a mixaor and temporary incroase in the demand piaced on publio service providers.
1'his demand increase could have temporary effect oa iacal palice and. shariff departmsnts, providers of
emergency tz�edical services, and locai fire distri�ts. The tertYporary construction impacts on locai schools
wuuld be at znost ,rninor, as few out-of-regian consttucrinn workers are Iikely to be accompanied by
families. Construction-related impacts to ioaal utilities are aiso expected to he minor and temparary.
Upon develcapment of industrial faail`aties, operatian is expected to require additional public services. As
shawci in '%bte 3, industrial development can be expected to result in a signif"tcant number of z�ew jobs,
rangixtg from about i,2�0 for the smaliest site {Sitc C—�everiy Bu.rke} to nearly S,4Q0 at the lazgest site
(Site t0 — Wheeler East).
Typicaily, every new job created in an urba� area resnits an additional new jobs and businesses to pzavide �
necess�ry services to the expazxded ecanomy. "I'his phenomenon is referred to as an "employment
t�rant G'ounty �� December I999
Mafor Iradustrial Developments ,�4 PCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
multiplier." Based on preliminary research conducted by Chase Economics, the Washington State Input-
Output Model (1993) indicates that an employment multiplier of 2.12 is typical for the employment
sector referred to as '`industrial trucks and tractors." Thus, for every direct job in this sector, which best
represents the industrial development expected at master planned locations, another 1,12 jobs will be
created within the local area. �
However, not all of the new jobs (both direct and indirect) are expected to result in "in-migration" to
Grant County. Some of the new jobs may be filled by those currently unemployed and residing in the
County. For example, some of the new indirect, service-industry jobs may be filled by a previously
unemployed spouse or a teenager, and would not result in in-migrarion. Based on data published by the
Washington 5tate Employment Security Department, an in-migrarion factor of 50% is appropriate for
Grant County, That is, 1 out of every 2 new jobs will be filled with in-migrants.
Table 3
Estimated Employees
ly� Total
Gross Developable Estdmated Estimaced
Area � Area1 Employees Total Entploymene .New�
Site Name (Acres) (Acres) perAcre' Ernployees ;Yfultiplierj Jobs
A Wheeler East 2,040 816 6.0 4,896 2.12 10,380
B Ephrata Airport 1,560 624 6.0 3,744 2.12 7,937
North
C Beverly Burke 520 208 6.0 1,248 2.12 2,646
D Martin 580 232 6.0 1,392 2.12 2,951
Net developab►e area calculated as 40% of gross area.
` Esrimated empioyees per acre based on analysis of 13 industries in Geant County.
' Source: Washington State Input-Output Model, 1993, Chase Economics
As for transportation, the cumulative impacts of designation and development of two master planned
locations for major industrial development must be evaluated. The most significant unpact would be for
the designarion of Site A and Site B, creating a cumulative total estimate of 18,317 new jobs. Applying
an in-migration factor of 50% results in 9,158 new residents to Grant County. Based on designarion of
both Sites A and B, the impact to capital facilities is estimated in Table 4 below.
Type of Capita
Facility1
Corrections
Juveaile
Detention
Law
Enforcement
Pazks
Administrativ
Officas
Solid Waste
Table 4
Estimated Capital Fa
Units
�fficers/ 1,000 population
Beds/1,000 population
system
�os
StandardZ
0.40
3.00
' See Chapter 8 of Grane County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS for descnptions.
Z Level of Service standards established in Grant County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS.
' See Chapter 10 — Utiliries Element of Grant County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS for descriprion.
° Computed by muitiplying LOS standard by the esrimated 9,158 new residents.
5 Additional population not expected to impact solid waste facilities.
New
Facilities
28 Beds
Grant County December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 25 1'cl
�
ENVIFiONMEMTAL CHECKLIST
The impact of patenrial futura deveiopment may create deficiencies in the number of law enfarcement
deputies, juvenile detention beds, an.d corractions afficers. No deficiencies are likeiy to be created in
sol'zd waste systems ar adm.inistrative offices. �'
There would be a positive potential impact on public services due to industrial daveiapment in the form
of uncreas�d propez-ty tax ravenue. Assessed value can be variable depending upon the capital intensity of
the develapment. Presentsd below in Table 5 is a summary of assessed value far indusmial properties
located in three areas of Grant County. Assessed value ranges from just over $12,000 par acre at the
Grant County Airpart to more than $94,Q04 per acre in the Wheeler Carridor, where industrial
developrnsnt is both capital intensive and of high densiiy. In the middle of the range is the prixnariiy
agricultural proeessing industry in the Wardea area at about $44,000 per acre.
Tabls S
Estineated Assessed Value'
Toial 1998
Gross 1998 �4xsessed
Indusiriad No. of Area Assessed I'alue per
Area � Aocounts (Aeres) Value . Acre
Wazden 25 373.44 � 1b,329,330� �43,�27
Wheeler Conridor 36 f,541.03 � 139,253,614 �90,364
GrantCauntyAuport 6$ _ 6,584.76 $ $1,Q45,350 $12,302
Industria! Land Llse Database, 1998 Economio
Economics & Reed Hansen & Associates
County, Chase
Because the intensity of industrial develapment for the master ptannad Iocarians is expected to be higher
tha� that in the Warden or Quincy areas, but less than that in the Wheeler Carridor area, an average
assessed value af $i5,040 per gross acre is appropriats. Based on that average vatue and 1999 tax Ievy
rates, the estitnated t�vc revenue generated by ttae potential sites is presented in Table 6. �
Table b
Estimated Anreual Tax Itevenue
Gross .4ssessed Assessed 1.7854 2.2�26
Areu Vatrte pe� 6�al�as G��seru! Ito�d
�'ite Name (Acres) Acre1 ($I,0�0) Fund Fund
A Whesler East 2,04Q $75,440 $153,OOQ �273,166 $3;40,058
B Ephrata Aitport 1,560 $75,OOU $117,OQ0 $208,$92 $�2'60,044
North
C Beveriy Burke 520 $75,004 $ 34,404 � 69,631 $.86,68I
D Martin 584 $75,040 $ 43,5�0 $ 77,665 $ 96,683
5ee analysis included in Table 5.
Z t999 Levy rates.
If both Sites A and B were designated, the totat combined assessed value upan full develctpment intensity
is �stimated at $270,OOQ,U00, and wauld distribute annually �n sstinnated total of $482,40Q to the County
Gez�eral Fund {Current Expensc) and more than $600,000 to the County Road Fund. Distribution from
pra�perty tax revenues would also be made to speeial districts, schooi districts and cities. An increase in
loaal ratail sales and ase tax can aiso be anticipated as a result of industrial development. These funds oan
be used to maint�in desired levels �►f public servicese
b. Proposed measures to reduce or �ontrol direet impacts on pubiic sarvices, ii any.
Measures to reduce ar miiigate teayporaxy cansiruc#ion irn�sacts of future industrial deveto�ment as a
result of this non-project acxion could include: �
Grant County Decemher 1999
Major Iniiusir•iai Developments , ,�� P�l
.�
ENVIRONMENTI�L CHECKLIST
• Coordinarion of constructian activiries with local emergency service providers to ensure access to all
locarions in the vicinity of the site(s) in the case of an emereency;
•"Temporary measures to control construction trafiic; and
• Noise and dust control methods.
Industrial lands are expected to be developed in a phased manner, which will moderate the need for
public services over time. Mitigation of potenrial impacts include:
• Developing LOS standards that ensure adequate resources are available to meet demands for service;
and
• Implementing policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan to mirigate capital facility impacts if
funding shortfalls occur.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricitv, natural gas, water, refuse service.
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
A comprehensive inventory of uriliries is provided in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS.
Utiliries available at the sites are described in the attached Site Selection Report. None of the sites have
utilities at the sites as will ultimately be required to serve the proposed future industrial development.
Utilities available to the sites include:
1. Site A— Wheeler East: electricity, narival gas, refuse service, and telephone. Water and sewer
disposal is provided in the vicinity by the City of Moses Lake, but City services are not anticipated to
be provided to the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
2. Site B— Ephrata Airport North: electricity, nattual gas, refuse service, and telephone. Water and
sewer disposal is provided in the vicinity by the City of Ephrata, but City services are not anticipated
to be provided to the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
3. Site C— Beverly Burke: electricity� refuse: service, and telephone. Water and sewer disposal is
provided in the vicinity by the City of George, but City services are not anticipated to be provided to
the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
4. Site D— Martin: electricity, natural gas, refuse service, and telephone. Water and sewer disposal is
provided in the vicinity by the City of Quincy, but City services aze not anticipated to be provided to
the site since it is outside of the City's UGA.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providiag the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Not applicable to this non-project action.
Future industrial development is expected to require electricity, narival gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities. Service providers vary from site to site; a comprehensive
inventory of utility providers is included in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS. Although water
and sewer service having adequate capacity to serve the potential industrial development may exist in the
urban growth azeas adjacent to the potenrial sites, it is not anticipated to be made available to serve future
Grant County December l999
Major Industrial Deve/opments 27 PCI
ENVIRCINMEAIi'AL CHECKI.iST
industrzai development. Grant County may elect to deveiop and provide water and sewer service to the
fuiure development.
C, Signature �
The above answers are t
rel�ing on thern io ma e its
Signature;
to the best nf my knawiedge. I understand that the tead agency is
�7ate Submitt�d: �,,��'',�y'?*a�`�� }� � , � �J�
�`—
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET �nR NdJNPItU3ECT r�.C'TIONS (do nat use this sheet for.project actzans)
Because these questions �re vary gen�rai, it may be helgfui to read them in conjunction with the list of the eletnents
of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activirias likely �to result from
the proposal, would affect the itern at a greater intensity ar at a fastsx rate than if the praposal were not°implemented.
Respond briefiy and in general terms.
Pt�ase reference the Grani C�unty Camprehsnsive PCan Draft Bnviranmer�tal Imp.act Statement, March 29,
X998, incorpnrat�d hereire by reference, for a detatled discussian of the impacts major iredustriad
devel�pnseat to. the elements af the environmen�
1. Ho�v would #he proposal be like►y to increase disc�arge to wat�r; emissions, to air; productian, stcarage,
or re�ease of toxic ar t�azarciaus substancas; or produc#ion af noise?
Future ind�triai dev�iapment resulting from this non-project action is likely tb resulti in inereases in suriace
and gro�xnd diseharges, and air aaid noise emissions. The intensity of disc�ar�es and ernissions are hi�khly
dep�ndent on the typ�s of industry that may develop. Additional site analysis to identify dischaxges and
emissions witl be oonducted as part of site-sp�ci�c developm�nt praposals reiated to future deve�opm�nt o�
any sites designated as mastex planned Iocations for majar industriai deveiopment.
Propased measc�ras to avoici or reduce suc� inc�ease� ar�:
Future industrial developrnent resulting fram this non-project acrion will b� required to corriply with current
local, state and federal regularions and the goals and pn�icies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
intended to prcvent degradation of air and water quality and promote proper nnanagement af stormwatez and
solid and ha`z,az^doas wastes. Praper implementat�on and administratian of the Graut Coun#y Resaurce Lands
and Critical Areas Ordinance pravides miti�atian measures far the gotenti�l isnpacts.
Irz�acts of future development activities will be svaluated in accordance with ths SEPA rules, tb,e Grant
Couuty 5hazeiine Management Pr�gram, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, and other pertinent
developme�it reguiations whea proposals for future development are reaeived. The County witi consider the
ircxpacts of industrial develogment atid rnay require apprnpriate mitigation based upon plans, poiicies, rules a�ad
regulations fua effoct at the time of deveiopmant,
2. I-�ow wouid the proposal be li�cely to affect plants, animals, fish, or �arine life?
Future indt}strial derrelopment resultin� fram this nou�project action will not significantty impact ptants,
arninxals, iish and marin� life. CozLstruction o£ new industzial facr'�liries may elinninate some existing vegetation,
depending on site«speciiic coaditidns. Na unpa�ts are exp�cted tp aquatic oxganisms.
Grant County ��� December 1999
Arlajvr Industr°ial i�evetapmen#s 28 �'C�
ENVIRONMENTAI. CHECKLIST
Additional site analysis to identify impacts to plants, animals, fish and marine life will be conducted as part of
site-specific development proposals related to future development of any sites designated as master planned
locations for major industrial development.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve piants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
See responses to items 4.D and S.D of the envuonmental checklist.
Future industrial development resulting from this non-project acrion will be required to comply with current
local, state and federal regularions and the goals and policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
intended to prevent degradarion of fish and wildlife and their habitat. Proper implemantation and
administrarion of the Grant County Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance provides mirigarion
measures for the potenrial impacts.
Impacts of future development acriviries will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant
County Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, and othcr pertinent
development regularions when proposals for future development are Xeceived. The County will consider the
impacts of industrial developznent and may require appropriate mirigarion based upon plans, policies, rules and
regulations in effect at the time of development.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Future industrial development resulting from this non-project action are likely to require energy and natural
resources, including natural gas, electrical power, fuel, and solar energy, for power, heating and transportation.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
In selection of potential sites for designarion as master planned locarion for majoa industrial d�v�loptne�t,
evaluarion criteria included considerarion of the proxunity and capacity of natural gas and electrical power..All
structures would be built in conformance with County building code and state energy code requirements:
Impacts of future development activities will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant
County Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, State energy and
County building codes, and other pertinant development regularions when proposals for future development
are received. The County will consider the impacts of industrial development and may require appropriate
mirigarion based upon pians, policies, rules and regularions in effect at the time of development.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protectioa; such as parks, wiiderness, wild and scemic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
The proposed non-project acrion designates land for conversion to industnal use, including some lands
currently in agricultural use. Environmentally sensitive, critical areas are present on the sites, including
wetlands and fish and wildlife species and habitat. No historic or cultural elements are anticipated at the sites.
Future industaial development will be managed to prevent impacts to environmentally sansitive areas through
appropriate site design measures.
Additional site analysis to identify environmentally sensitive areas and impacu to them will be conducted as
part of site-specific development proposals related to future development of any sites designated as master
planned locations for major industrial development.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Proposed measures to protect resources are described in the rssponse to item 81 of the envirorunental checklist.
Impacts of future development activities will be evaluated in accordance with the SEPA rules, the Grant
Grant Counry December 1999
Major Industrial Developments 29 pCl
�NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
-"'� County Shoxeline Management Pragram, Resaurce Lands and Critical Areas ordinance, and other partinent
develapment regtaiations when proposais for futuse deveic�pment are receiv�d. The County will consider the
impacts of industrial deveiopment and znay require approgriate mirigation based upnn plans, policies, rules and
regulations in effect at the cime of development. �
5. How would the gro�osal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreiine uses incQmpatible wiih egisting pians?
None of the proposed sites Ize within designated shareiines. Existing iand uses will be canverted to industriai
use. Such industriai land use is cornparibie with the requirements of the Grant County Camprehensive Plan,
which adopted a process far designation of master planned locations for rnajor industrial development, and the
requirements of RCW 36,70A.367 af the Growth Managernent Act.
Froposed measures to avoid ar reduce shoreiiae and land use impacts are:
Sites have been identiiied and evaivated based partiaily on thair consistet�cy and compatibility with site and
adjacent land uses and Comprehensive Plan designatzons. Designatian af master planned locations %r major
industriai development recognizes the Couaty's need for industrial lands and its associated pxoperty tax
revenue for lang term viability of' service provision. Designation is consistent with the requirements of RCW
36.i0A.36i. Site develapment and design requirements will ensure ihat:
1. Buffers are pzovided between the major industriai development and adjacent nonurban areas:
2. Deveiopment regulations are established to ensure that ur6an growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban
areas;
3. Provision is made to mitigate adverse iznpacts on designated agricultural lands, forest iands, and mi�eral
resourae lancis; and
4. Th� plan for major industriai deveiapm�nt is cansistent with the County's developrnent regulations �
esiablished for protecrion of crirical areas.
Impacts of future development activiries wiil be evaluated in. accordance with the SEPA rules, eh� Grant
Caunty Shoreline Management Program, Resource Lands and Critical Areas orciina�oe, and other perti�ent
development re�ularions when proposals £or ftittue development are received. The Caunty wiil consider the
impacts af industriai development and may raquire appropriate mztigarion based upon plans, policies, rules and
reguiations in effeet at the tim� oi developtnent.
6. �Iaw wauld th+� progosal be likely to increase dernands on transportation or public services and ut�lities?
Futuxe development at the sites is �xpected to inctease demands on transpoxtaatian„ pubtic services and uti3i#ies
due to increased employrment and population. Estimates of increased demauds are identified in �items i4, 15
and 16 of the enviranmental checkiist.
Propased measures ta reduce ar respond to such demand(s) ars:
Ths GMA and the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS require that new dsvelopment be prohibit�d uniess
transportarion improvements to accommodate the impacts af development ar funding strategies far such
i.mpxovements are made concutrent with the development ar will be finan,cially planned to be in place �vithin
six years. If proposed development is expected to decrease LQS belaw ad.opted standards, iransportation
impzovemcnts must be made. Development rrtust pxavide mitigation of off-site traffic impacts.
Irnpacts of future development activities, if any, will be evaluated in accordance with the SEI'A rules, the
Grant County` Comprehensive Plan, and other pertinent devolopment regulations when pxoposals for i"uture
developm�nt are received. The Couunty witt cansider the irnpacts of iadttstriat deveiogt�xeat on tzaffic and
taranspartation irmprovements and may require appropriate mirigation based upo� pians, �}4�1C18S, rules and �
regulations in effect at the t�ae of develapmeat.
Grant Cnun� � Decem6er 1999
Major Industrial lievelopments 30 , FCI
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISi
Future deveiapment may rec}uue improvements to raads and utilities, depending upon site-specific conditians
and the nature and sizs af the proposed facilities. Traffic demand management practices that may be required
include encouraging indusiries to operate on a mulriple-shift basis, develop ride-share incentives, use public
transit and park-and-ride facilities, and to use the rail mode to the greatest extent pracricable.
Industrial lands are expected to be deveioped in a phased nn;anner, which wilt rnoderate the need for public
services aver time. Mitigatian of patentiai irnpacts include:
" Developing LQS standards that enstue adequate resources are available to rneet demands for service; and
• Implementing policies of tt�e Grant County Comprehensive Plan to mitigate capital facility irnpacts if
funding shortfalls occur.
Industrial development will also generate significant property tax revenue from whicb distributions would be
made ta the County Genezai Fund {Current Expense} and the Caunty Road Ftuzd. Distributian from property
tax zevenues wauld also be made ta special districts, schooi districts and cities. An increase in lacal retail saies
and use tax can alsa be anticipated as a result of industrial develapment. These funds
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or £ederal laws ar requirements
foc the protection of the environment.
�otii this non-praject actian and future industrial deveiopment wili comply with aii local, state, and federai
laws ar requirements foa the protection of the environment.
Attachments
1. Figure 1 Sitc Lacations
2. Figtue 2 Sitc A— Wheeier East MID
3. Figure 3 Sitc B— Ephrata Airport North MID
4. Figure 4 Site C— Beverly Burke MID
5. Figure S Site D— Mariin MID
6. Pigutr.e 6 Grant County Road System
Grant County Decemher 1999
Major Industriad Develppments 31 pGl
5.i..F . . •i f�
�,
�
.
. � ..
i r �
� i
s��s i� ••
� • ��it • •
• �y► ' e� � +�
s �.� _ •
�
►
i
`��
,�„`o�'
� � �
♦ ♦ i ' r
r
f ♦ �
�
'�
i
0
�� r ��� f' ,
_�... • .,.�� ,, '�� -
._�`i��. ►~_`�►�►�� .,<<,�.,�, .-�--�:��1�..�7
�
.�►�.....!-�-. ;
-......_,.....
i�,i�►.�1►J.�'
,.....�, .
,�.�'` �j��11�,
�� 1_. �►..�
p�z;t�
,�'�
�
'�� �
.�' �� �
Q
��
��, � �
�
;
,
''�
�
���
�'�c �L�4'�
,
.,- ;�`.
��`'�
� ` � �
1�'
N
�a � /
✓ �� �
4..► y J � ' •�s . r •
• �
•
_ '�Z� , • �a i
s
s • •
� • �1
t
��..C` � • s f a •
L� j , ti
G� •�
� � .
L� �• • �
�r • s ��
� � �
� •
• � +�
• • N
ts � t • �-c
a�� . �L{,u, `� s � • �
. • r
���•
, ••
•
\ �
s •
� M p •
•
s�.-L� � � !
� �
t�,.it . sc u � �
'� .
� •
O i ♦
�� � t1
� . s�
� � � �
� * • .
M
` � �� •
t � ♦
.,- � / •
a
. �•
/� i �.
•
��I • •
'~�"� • ••.
,.�_'�,�s� •• s
a
O� y ` .�`"c`
�
s�'cs
, 9.
�
�� ,��� _
�7�
� �*f��� -/�
t*`��i ` �
;
�
Grand Coulee --, I
»+ :� tiuw
� ry � �f 17♦ :.
� � .£ 0
f� ' � � �'i�GC�'1C �.'�tf
i ___ — � `
,�
�
✓ �,� �
�� I
�� �
��
�GRANT COUNTY� ROAD SYSTEM �
PROJECTED 2fl18 TRAFFiC VOLUM�S
:
,
FiGttRE
�
�
�
.
� ,
'�-- � �,�
\ ,, .�4
� .� �' �
�-��'°��
e �- �
� ,�
,a
0
�-:,,�,�,.•- , -•, -..r �- - �
r,•�► �r; ��. �� , �r► � �
. , r��►- .
r`�, � ,,
� , ,�►,; : -,
!� ` ir , ..�. .; �,
�� •� - ,____----- � ,
1� �` '1" �'' ��� .""'""'�
.�� �;, .,
��,� �/► .�r�
` . � �. �{
� � , - �� � �,,......
t , ~� �,,,,�� �
�� � �
\� ; � �,
,"`'"� � ,� �""�"/
,�, �
/'r�.�.s�,;,
��., . �
1►.�.--���� �'�"�► w►,!!
� �"''�li►�'�r►= � � _ , ��
,,►,.,.• ���,.m �
'�,,!�,...+i\ � ,:
• '� � �,,,,;, � .',�' � 1 �
�v�, �'
� ` • �
��' � '
.,+�`""r '�� .
� . +�
� � , ,
� � ,
„
�;
, \ \
�l• w
'■
� �
-�'
����� t'11r"Q.�t {�� �'
��