The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 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 {�� ' ��