HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-056 - Res. Approving Formation of an Economic Development District Known as the Pacific Salish EDD Resolution No. 2026-05L0
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY AND FORMATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN
AS THE PACIFIC-SALISH EDD ENCOMPASSING GRAYS HARBOR,MASON,PACIFIC,
AND THURSTON COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON STATE
WHEREAS, the federal government allows for and encourages the creation of multi jurisdictional
Economic Development Districts(EDDs)to facilitate finding and technical assistance programs through the US
Economic Development Administration(EDA); and,
WHEREAS, Thurston is one of only two counties in Washington State not included in a federally
recognized EDD, and the former EDD, Columbia-Pacific (ColPac), that housed Grays Harbor, Mason, and
Pacific County is no longer in operation; and,
WHEREAS, the four counties have jointly completed, through the leadership of their respective
Economic Development Organizations (EDOs) an EDA-approved Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) that includes multiple geographical areas that meet EDA's regional distress criteria as set out
in 13 CFR § 30.1.3(a);and,
WHEREAS; federal investment and technical assistance will help the Pacific-Salish region advance
capital-intensive infrastructure and other project priorities that are beyond local jurisdiction financial means;
and,
WHEREAS,the EDD will be professionally managed with supportive federal finding and local in-kind
match, governed'by a Board of Directors comprised of the four EDO Executives, and incubated at the Thurston
County EDC Center for Business and Innovation (CBI);and,
WHEREAS,the formation of an Economic Development District(EDD)does not supplant any existing
roles or authorities in the region and is effectively a new tool for achieving locally defined economic
development goals and priorities;and,
NOW,THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED,that the Board of County Commissioners of Mason County
and Economic Development Council of Mason County Board of Directors hereby supports and approves the
CEDS Plan and formation of the new Pacific-Salish Economic Development District pending final approval by
the Washington State Governor.
DATED this 2411'day of October,2023.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Sillkli,C rk of the Board Sharon Trask,Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ra dy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair
r
Tim Whi lace , Tiq?"Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Alvin Shu om i loner
-�. -"ems" �� "' _ s r� �• �i �'� ,r
• �^"'-_`---,rye-- �. � ..;:-
'4t-
w n s li r.r c r o p
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................................................1
ThePacific-Salish Region..........................................................................................................................................2
PhysicalLandscape............................................................................................................................................2
SocioeconomicLandscape.................................................................................................................................3
Population...................................................................................................................................................3
Demographics.............................................................................................................................................6
Housing .......................................................................................................................................................8
Income ......................................................................................................................................................10
LaborForce Participation..........................................................................................................................15
Educational Attainment, Unemployment and Poverty............................................................................16
CommutingProfile....................................................................................................................................19
Business and Industry Landscape....................................................................................................................20
BusinessEstablishments...........................................................................................................................20
Industry Group Cluster Insights ................................................................................................................20
Core and Emerging Industry Insights...............................................:........................................................25
OccupationInsights...................................................................................................................................31
Resiliency................................................................................................................................................................34
Environmental .................................................................................................................................................34
Socioeconomic.................................................................................................................................................34
LegacyIndustries.............................................................................................................................................34
MarineIndustry Cluster............................................................................................................................34
Wood Products Industry Cluster...............................................................................................................35
Agriculture ................................................................................................................................................35
Emergency Preparedness................................................................................................................................35
EconomicDisaster.....................................................................................................................................35
PhysicalDisaster........................................................................................................................................36
SWOTAnalysis........................................................................................................................................................38
Strengths..........................................................................................................................................................38
Weaknesses.....................................................................................................................................................38
Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................................39
Threats.............................................................................................................................................................41
Infrastructure.........................................................................................................................................................42
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District i
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
BroadbandInfrastructure................................................................................................................................42
GraysHarbor.............................................................................................................................................43
MasonCounty...........................................................................................................................................43
PacificCounty............................................................................................................................................44
ThurstonCounty.......................................................................................................................................44
Vision, Focus Areas, Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................................46
VisionStatement.............................................................................................................................................46
Focus Areas,goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................46
Focus Area: Industry and Entrepreneurial Networks (IEN) ......................................................................46
Focus Area: Infrastructure Capacity and Modernization (ICM)................................................................47
Focus Area: Economic Opportunity for All (EOA).....................................................................................47
Focus Area: Environmental Stewardship and Resiliency(ESR).................................................................48
PriorityActions and Projects..................................................................................................................................49
EconomicDevelopment Partners..........................................................................................................................55
EvaluationFramework...........................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A—Community Engagement Inventory...............................................................................................A-1
MasonCounty ...............................................................................................................................................A-1
GraysHarbor County.....................................................................................................................................A-1.
ThurstonCounty...........................................................................:................................................................A-2
PacificCounty................................................................................................................................................A-3
Appendix B—Regional Plans Summary................................................................................................................ B-1
Appendix C—Pacific-Salish EDD Project Inventory by County.............................................................................C-1
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District ii
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Table of Figures & Tables
Figure 1: Population Growth 2010-2020 .................................................................................................................3
Table 1: Current Population Estimates, 2022..........................................................................................................3
Figure 2: County Population Densities, 1980-2020 .................................................................................................5
Table 2: Pac-Salish Urban/Rural Breakdown by County, 2021................................................................................6
Figure 3: Pacific-Salish Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2020 Snapshot....................................................................6
Figure 4: Pacific-Salish Race and Ethnicity Shifts, 2010-2020..................................................................................7
Figure 5: Pacific-Salish Average Age, 2010-2020.....................................................................................................7
Figure 6: Pac-Salish Housing by Urban/Rural, 2022.................................................................................................8
Figure 7: Pacific-Salish Median House Value (owner-occupied units), 2010-2020.................................................9
Figure 8: Pacific-Salish Homeowner and Rental Vacancy Rates, 2010-2020...........................................................9
Figure 9: Pacific-Salish Renter-Occupied Housing Units (%of Occupied Units), 2010-2020.................................10
Figure 10: Pacific-Salish Median Household and Per Capita Income, 2010-2020.................................................10
Figure 11: Pacific-Salish Median and Mean Income Trend, 2010-2020................................................................11
Table 3:ALICE Households by Pac-Salish County..................................................................................................11
Figure 12:ALICE Households by County and ZIP Code Trade Area (Percent) .......................................................12
Figure 13:ALICE Households by County and ZIP Code Trade Area (Percent) .......................................................13
Figure 14:ALICE Households by County and ZIP Code Trade Area (Number).......................................................14
Figure 15: Pacific-Salish Labor Force Participation Rate, 2010-2020....................................................................15
Figure 16: Pacific-Salish Labor Force Participation for People with a Disability, 2012-2020................................15
Figure 17: Pacific-Salish Educational Attainment, Age 25-64: 2020 Snapshot......................................................16
Figure 18: Pacific-Salish Ave Annual Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment, 2010-2020....................16
Figure 19: Pacific-Salish Unemployment Rate, 2010-2020....................................................................................17
Figure 20: Pacific-Salish Ave Annual Unemployment Rate by Race, 2010-2020...................................................17
Figure 21: Pacific-Salish Ave Annual Unemployment Rate by Gender: 2010-2020..............................................18
Figure 22: Pacific-Salish Poverty Levels, 2012-2020..............................................................................................18
Figure 23: Pacific-Salish Uninsured Resident Population by Percentage, 2012-2020...........................................19
Figure 24: Pacific-Salish Mean Commute Time (minutes), 2010-2020..................................................................19
Figure 25: %of Pacific-Salish Workers that Commute via Public Transportation, 2010-2020..............................19
Figure 26:Total Establishments in Pac-Salish EDD by County, 1990-2022 ...........................................................20
Figure 27: Pacific-Salish Industry Groups by Location Quotient, 2023..................................................................21
Figure 28: Pac-Salish Industry Group 10-Yr Historical Employment Performance, 2012-2022 ............................22
Figure 29: Pac-Salish Industry Groups, Av Annual Employment Historical Rate (%) Q3 2012-Q3 2022..............22
Figure 30: Pac-Salish Industry Group 10 Yr. Employment Growth Forecast, 2022-2032......................................23
Figure 31: Pac-Salish Industry Groups,Av Annual Employment Growth Forecast (%) Q3 2022-Q3 2032............24
Figure 32: Pac-Salish Industry Group Employment Change, 10 Yr. Hist. and 10 Yr. Forecast Comparison ..........24
Table 4: Media (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022..........................................................................25
Table 5: Health (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022 .........................................................................26
Table 6: Professional Services (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022 ..................................................27
Table 7: Construction (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022 ...............................................................28
Table 8:Agricultural (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022 .................................................................29
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District iii
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Table 9: Pac-Salish Agricultural Statistics(2017)...................................................................................................30
Figure 33: Pacific-Salish EDD Employment Volume by 2-Digit Occupation Codes: Q3 2022................................31
Table 10:Top 20 6-Digit Pac-Salish Occupations by Volume, Q3 2022.................................................................32
Figure 34:Av Annual Occupation Gaps over 10 Years in Pac-Salish, 2-Yr Degree or Higher(Q3 2023) ...............33
Figure 35: Washington Residents in the Tsunami Inundation Zone (tam summer weekend scenario)...............36
Figure 36: Likely Tsunami Inundation Zones, Pac-Salish Region ...........................................................................37
Figure 37: %of Population with No Internet.........................................................................................................43
e-
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District iv
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Executive Summary
*omplete (what mafiters"mosto) o;r"d`elete (all;read toolang)'posfipub ilit,c revie-w. ®`r create separate fact sheet
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 1
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
The Pacific-Salish Region
PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE
The Pacific-Salish Economic Development District encompasses four
counties located in the southwest corner of Washington State. Pacific
and Grays Harbor Counties line the Pacific Ocean,while to the east,
Mason and Thurston Counties border the southernmost point of the 'r
Salish Seal in South Puget Sound.The greater region spans from the
Columbia River to the south,to the Olympic Mountains in the north.
From the center of the region, both Portland and Seattle can be
reached in approximately ninety minutes.
While populated by a number of medium-sized cities and small towns,the region remains heavily forested
with an abundance of lakes, rivers and streams. The region receives more precipitation than most of the US,
but winters are mild and summers are glorious.The northwestern corner of the region is considered remote
and the gateway to the quietest place in the United States, deep in the temperate Olympic Rain Forest
(https://onesguareinch.org/). Conversely, Olympia, in the eastern part of the region, is the seat of Thurston
County, and also the Capitol City for Washington State.
The region is served by multiple transportation options. Interstate 5 runs N-S through Thurston County. State
Highway 12 connects the coast to Interstate 5, and State Highway 101 provides N-S connectivity on both the
Pacific coast and from Olympia north through Shelton adjacent to Puget Sound. Multiple rail lines facilitate the
movement of cargo and passengers. Multiple sea ports provide shipping_access for primarily breakbulk cargo
via both the Pacific Ocean and inland Puget Sound. SeaTac international airport is located 45 minutes north in
King County, and Portland International about 90 minutes south.
The region also features 2,339 farms, ranches and aquaculture operations (more on these in Industries
section), as well as beach towns,tribal reservations and the Fort Lewis US Military Base.
6 j;T• v 8wt
w ' Battle' i
Kft'pp T:ti :n ..: nfpinLrkus eir..7
nad5 f. Kent ° {d :.Wen
aeserwxiiau^ 1b. :4 -
G� Harf,dr OI m la �itti+as
Ahh dden +12 -Y.,P
_ } Pierce
I hWstm
- ,. Ndripnel Peril' _ '
f'acd�c �Yaa
Lew,
• �"�"''{��. Yakima
or'
Y�ahklakurn '
• - Yakama ltalron ��r A_afoi'I F�°"`" Rescrvntlon p'�
ongv ewCo.vlitz UGWodnd.n Plna6or
Nmlon l
er Fn�nr f7
1 https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish Sea
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District .2
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
SOCIOECONOMIC LANDSCAPE
Original Peoples
Population The Pacific-Salish region has been inhabited since
time immemorial by multiple Indigenous tribes.
The Pacific-Salish region is home to approximately The descendants of the original inhabitants
450,000 people. Over the decade between 2010 and include, but are not limited to the Chehalis,
2020,the region grew over 12%and at a clip with the Quinoult, Nisqually,Squaxin, Chinook Nation,
overall Washington State average. Like most of the Skokomish and Shoalwater Bay Tribes. Today,
country,the most significant population was in the Age local tribes operate a variety of successful natural
65-74 cohort,which grew from 8%to just over 12%of resource and business enterprises and, in some
the total population,while.the median age rose to 41.6 cases, are the primary economic engines in rural
from 40.3. As of 2022,the region is home to areas of the region.
approximately 6%of the Washington State population.
Figure 1: Population Growth 2010-2020
450,000 445,914
i
440,000 437,982
I i
} 430,559
430,000 423,848
419,347
420,000 415,578
412,457
409,600
410,000 406,172
401,907
400,000 396,134
i
390,000
i
380,000
f
370,000 .—_---
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:JobsEQ
As of 2022, each county's population/population rank relative to all 39 WA counties are as follows:
Table 1: Current Population Estimates, 2022
2022 POPULATION ESTIMATE COUNTY POPULATION
Grays Harbor 76,400 19
Mason 66,200 20
Pacific 23,600 28
Thurston 300,500 6
Total Pacific-Salish Population 466,700 NA
Source:OFM Forecasting and Research Division
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 3
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
The table above underscores several regional nuances addressed elsewhere in this document. First,Thurston
County is by far the largest population center. In addition to hosting the State Capitol, it is the only Pac-Salish
county transected by Interstate 5. With such a high concentration of the population in one corner of the
region, industry cluster structures and supply chain performance are impacted in multiple ways. For example, a
person commuting to Thurston from another county for employment may also purchase a sizable portion of
goods and services there rather than in their home county.
A prime example of this dynamic occurs in the City of Olympia.As the seat of state government,the City is a
net importer of jobs. Over 48,000 non-residents commute into the City for work each day.Conversely, of the
24,000 Olympian who are employed, 13,000 leave Olympia for work and just 9,000 both live and work in the
City. In short, spending circulates greatly throughout and outside of the region.
Second, as a whole,the region has continued to grow even faster than the 2010 decade the past two years.
While formal analysis has not yet confirmed this, it is clear that this is in large part the result of the pandemic
and resulting increase in the share of workforce now working from home'. While some workers have returned,
many have not and others are working hybrid with minimal trips to the office.
The Pac-Salish region has been a destination for these workers
given the quality of life and relative affordability compared to
large metro areas like Seattle.The impact is manifest in rapidly
escalating home prices driven by wealthier buyers as well as lack
of stock to keep up with in migration.
A final important nuance to the population data is the
proliferation of second homes and vacation rentals, and the
seasonal,transitory nature of seasonal residency.This is i
particularly challenging for the small but scenic communities in
our region. APRIL 27,2023
LOCAL HOUSING-WHAT
Many affordable rentals once available to year-round workers WE HAVE LEARNED SO FAR
ific
have been converted to seasonal recreation use. Equally Join County
roranup0.lteon the upon t P housing
County Houatng YlorMlnp Group on local houslny
neMsarW opportunities. '
challenging, many communities on the coast have a small year-
round population,yet must finance infrastructure to E- � !r`
accommodate summer visitors that, in some cases, double the rJarrr P.iam COurny Houstxa AUr8O1UTy
community's population for several months a year. Willapa Community Dc 1opmmtAssoc
With respect to densification,the following maps show shifts for WA Counties between 1980 and 2020. In the
Pac-Salish region, Grays Harbor remained in the 20-50 persons per square mile (PPSM) range, while Pacific
grew from 5-10 to 10-20, Mason from 20-50 to 50-100, and Thurston from 100-200 to 200-400 PPSM. Pacific
and Grays Harbor remain eligible for rural assistance3 under Washington State rules, but Mason and Thurston
no longer meet the criteria.
2 E.g.,In 2022,TRPC estimated 71.1%of Capitol Campus workers and 63.3%of ALL Thurston Workers were still tele-commuting.
3 For more about rural assistance opportunities in Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties:https://ofm.wa.goy/washington-data-research/population-
demoRraphics/population-estimates/popu lation-density/select-references-population-density-washinston-law
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 4
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 2: County Population Densities, 1980-2020
QMhlitdd ;
ua HIL
Sisag` Ste
Persons/Sq.Mi.
-laflfl Gtend 0-5
Is ish
5-10
,� I® 10-20
fSi s 3°duane 20-50
tvSasa 50-100
Gf8 5 Ffflrb°r Gtfl t l 100-200
Pearce
200-400
400-700
Psari lev's � "�
k '� Frar&li
Berdon
Goavlitz "�,1,,;,�,yy flllfl ells °f '
Cis�k
2020 V1�hflfcaM
Jus - ,���� � P ilta
Sks rt t
Persons/Sq.Mi.
Islism 0-5
SnehtBn is
� s-10
Gh�lsn
JEffess0n Douglss 10-20
5 S fln
- 20-50
50-100
NSas an<
Grsya Hart r l itWas Grant 100-200
Pam , �danus ti>?pitman _ 200-400
_ 400-700
Pacific Lsvis Frer%t Im 700-1100
G�vffi�t; ` Bantan Vatl irYalla r3fin
I
lth�that
Source:OFM Forecasting and Research Division
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 5
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
As noted earlier,Thurston County is the population center of the Pac-Salish region (64%of total).Yet the
region as a whole is mostly rural, even when including Thurston County. While the US Census does not define
rural, it does consider rural to include all people, housing and territory not within an urban area.The Census
defines urban in two ways: Urbanized Areas of 50,000 or more people; and Urbanized Clusters with 2.500-
49,999 people.4 The table below shows how that breaks out for the Pac-Salish region.
Table 2: Pac-Salish Urban/Rural Breakdown by County, 2021
COUNTY %RURAL URBAN AREAS
Grays Harbor 52% Aberdeen, Hoquiam,Ocean Shores and Montesano
Mason 85% Shelton
Pacific 87% Raymond
Thurston 48% Lacey,Olympia,Tumwater,Yelm, Rochester,Tanglewilde,Grand Mound
Source:US Census Quick Facts;Washington State OFM;J Robertson and Company
Demographics
While the majority of the region's population is still White, Non-Hispanic, it has undergone diversification over
the past decade.That diversification has accelerated recently, driven primarily by Hispanic/Latino and
Multiracial population growth.
Figure 3: Pacific-Salish Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2020 Snapshot
90% 81.3%
80%
l 70%
i
60% `
50.%
40
30%
i
20% I
a 9.6%
II10% 2.3% 1.9% 4.2% 0.7% 2.6% 7.0/
o,
o White Black or American Asian Native Some Two or Hispanic or
African Indian and Hawaiian Other Race More Latino(of
American Alaska and Other Races any race)
Native Pacific
Islander
Source:JobsEQ
4 https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/what-is-
ru ral#:-:text=The%20Census%20does%20not%20define,UCs)%20ofl202%2C500%20%2D%2049%2C999%20people
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 6
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 4: Pacific-Salish Race and Ethnicity Shifts, 2010-2020
100%
i 90%% 15.2% 15.1% 15.3% 15.5% 15.8% 15.9% 16.0% 16.2% 16.6% 16.9% 18.7%
80%
1
70% I
i
j 60%
50%
j
40/o o 84.8% 84.9% 84.7% 84.5% 84.2% 84.1% 84.0% 83.8% 83.4% 83.1% 81.3%
i
1 30%
20%
10%
I 0%
I 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
■White ■Other Race,Two or More Races
Source:JobsEQ
Like the rest of the US,the average age in the Pac-Salish region is rising-from a median of40.3 in 2020,to
44.6 in 2020. As shown below,the largest shift over the last decade is in the age 65-74"baby boomer" cohort.
Over that same period,the region has also seen a decreasing percentage in the number of children under age
18.
Figure 5: Pacific-Salish Average Age, 2010-2020
2020 20.6% 777M 12.2%
2019 20.8%® 11.8%
2018 21.0% 11.4%
2017 21.2% 11.0%
2016 21.3% 10.5%
2015 21.4% 10.0%
j 2014 � 21.6% -_` 9.5%
2013 21.8% 9.0%
2012 22.0% 8.7%I�
i
2011 22.2% 8.3%I®
2010 22.3% 8.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■ Under 18 Years ■18 to 24 Years 1125 to 34 Years ■35 to 44 Years
i
■45 to 54 Years ■55 to 64 Years ■65 to 74 Years ■75 Years and Over
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 7
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Housing
As of 2022,there were an estimated 211,501 units of housing in the Pac-Salish Region.As the charts below
show,those units were fairly evenly located in incorporated and unincorporated areas. Consistent with
population totals,the greatest volume of housing is in Thurston County. Grays Harbor is the only other county
to have more housing in urban environments than rural.
Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) encourages development in urban areas, so trends are likely to
show increased density in cities.This could have adverse impacts on rural counties with inadequate
infrastructure or access to related financing to support GMA mandated density. *It should be noted that Grays
Harbor is the only county in the Pac-Salish Region that does not plan under the Growth Management Act.
Figure 6: Pac-Salish Housing by Urban/Rural, 2022
j
i
R
i
99,040 I
47% 112,461
53%
i
i
■ Unincorporated ■ Incorporated
Source:OFM Forecasting and Research Division
140,000
j
I
120,000 j
j
I
100,000
I
67,2,1 i
80,000
i
60,000 j
i
I 40,000 i
2,3,720
20,000
Grays Harbor County Mason County Pacific County Thurston County
i
i ■Unincorporated s Incorporated j
Source:OFM Forecasting and Research Division
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 8
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Following the turbulence of the Great Recession, regional home values remained stagnant, and even declined.
However, by 2017, real estate values began to rise and then spiked during the pandemic. Home prices are
particularly high where people are able to remain working from home. For example, in Thurston County,the
seat of State Government,the median value of single-family home in 2023 has crested $500,000.
Figure 7: Pacific-Salish Median House Value (owner-occupied units), 2010-2020
$300,000
$275,996
$253,151
$250,000 $227 683$230 $225,469 800 $239,050
$219,262$215,969$214,949$217,022$226,437
I
I
` $200,000
I
$150,000
j
$100,000
I ,
1
$50,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:JobsEQ
While there are many benefits to being a desirable region to live in, there are also challenges. For more than a
decade,the region has failed to construct enough homes to keep pace with growth.As a result, vacancy rates
have continued to decline and rents have risen.
Figure 8: Pacific-Salish Homeowner and Rental Vacancy Rates, 2010-2020
7%
6%
i
i
5% 4 2% 4.2%
4% .00
i
3% 2.3%
i
1
2/0
o
1.2%
1% I
0% -
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Homeowner Vacancy Rental Vacancy
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 9
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Overall,the region's share of rental properties has remained around 30%of total housing stock. However, in
more urban areas such as the City of Olympia, over 50%of housing units are rentals.
Figure 9: Pacific-Salish Renter-Occupied Housing Units (% of Occupied Units), 2010-2020
40%
35% 321% 32.7% 33.3% 33.2% 33.4% 319°/
30.1% 30.1% 30.2% 30.8% 31.0%
30%
i
25%
j20%
15%
j 10%
I
5%
f 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:JobsEQ
Income
Both median household and per capita income remained stagnant following the Great Recession. Both began
to inch upward in 2016,though at a slower pace for per capita income.While official data is pending, it
appears incomes have continued to grow since, albeit not as fast as inflation.
Figure 10: Pacific-Salish Median Household and Per Capita Income, 2010-2020
$80,000 I
$70,000 $68,110
$60,000 $54,468
$50,000
$40,000 $33,478
$30,000 $26,826
i `
$20,000
$10,000
j $0 —------...__._.-----.------- ____..._.------------------------__.._----.------.___
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Median Household Income Per Capita Income j
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 10 .
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
In 2010, mean and median income were separated by about$11,500. By 2020,the gap had grown to over
$14,700, meaning a smaller subset of households have experienced much stronger income gains.
Figure 11: Pacific-Salish Median and Mean Income Trend, 2010-2020
$90,000
$80,457 $82,854
$80,000 $76,897
$70,328 $73,329
$70,000 $65,964 $67,298 $67,538 $67,275 $67,915 $68,005 $6s,lss $68,110
$62,679
$59,434 {
$60,000 $54,468 $56,256 $56,261 $55,595 $55,954 $55,679 $56,865
i
$50,000
1 $40,000
i
$30,000
$20,000
i
$10,000
i •
$0
i
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
■ Median Income (dollars) ■Mean Income (dollars)
i
L... ------- ---
Source:JobsEQ
Perhaps a more effective way to evaluate income and financial security is through a review of ALICE° data.
ALICE, a United Way acronym which stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed -represents the
growing number of individuals and families who are working, but unable to afford basic necessities like
housing,food, childcare, health care, and transportation. These are often people who provide essential
services-teachers, mechanics, police officers.
Statewide, a combined total of 33% households live below the ALICE and/or federal poverty threshold. But in
parts of the Pac-Salish region,that figure is much higher-in particular, Pacific County, where 59%of
households were living below the ALICE threshold as of 2021.
Table 3:ALICE Households by Pac-Salish County
%
below federal .. ALI E Combined Total
thresholdthreshold
State Average 9% 24% 33%
Grays Harbor 10% 36% 46%
Mason 12% 28% 40%
Pacific 14% 45% 59%
Thurston 10% 22% 32%
Source:unitedfora lice.org
As shown in the zip code charts below, some areas of the Pac-Salish region are considerably more at-risk
(inability to pay for medical incidents, make rent,grow savings, et al)than others.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 11
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
° IL GEC Thurston
98506- 98512-
Olympia, Olympia,
98535 Copali's`Beach 98587-Taholah 98530-Bucoda 98589-Tenino Lacey Tumwater
59 52 46 37 36 35
98586 South
98527 Bay Center 98547-Grayland Bend' 98501-
82 76 72, 98503-Olympia, Olympia, 98579
�98550-Hoquiam 98520-Aberdeen Lacey Tumwater
50 49 3g 34 Rochester 98597-Yelm
33 33
98513-
98516- Olympia,
98614-Chinook 98631-Long Beach 98502-Olympia 98576-Rainier Olympia,Lacey Lacey
60 60 98595- 38 33 30 25
98566 Neilton Westport 98541 Elma
IL
_98644.5eaview 44 43 42
71 98584-Shelton,
Skokomish
98640-Ocean Park 98569-Ocean Nation
58 98624-Ilwaco Shores 98555 Lilliwaup 42. 98588- 98546-
50 40 98513- 98568- S5 Tahuya Grapeview
- Monesano Oakville 39: 38
39 38
98524-
98638-Naselle 98577-Raymond 98590-Tokeland 98557-McCleary 985.37 Cosmopol s 98548-Hoodsport 98528 Belfalr 98592-Union Allyn
62 53 34 39. 34 43 40 29 18
Households . . . .
Co
%of Pac-Salish Households Living Below ALICE Threshold, by County and Zip Code Trade Area: 2021
986
BSSS soo per,
A
OlymAia 'la�P �js �Sv'
g8s�s. lase... ... - .�•.
985>g-Roche o o ��
ster,33
98597-Yefm,33m
98501-Olympia,...
98512 OIYmPia,... ThUrStOII 986 0 ean
ar
8506-OIVmP�a.�a�e..
Source:United for Alice,J Robertson and Company
985p2 O �.Q`a� _ �o ��•
5
h � m h in fl
A
W
Economic Development
While Pacific has the highest percentage of households living below the ALICE threshold,Thurston has the highest volume of ALICE households. Those
volumes are clustered around Olympia and Tumwater. Shelton,Skokomish Nation, Aberdeen and Hoquiam have high volumes as well.
Figure 14:ALICE Households by County and ZIP Code Trade Area (Number)
#of Pac-Salish Households Living Below ALICE Threshold by County and Zip Code Trade Area:2021 (67,574 total households)
(see prior chart for county color-coding)
7,000 6,706
6,227
t
I y
� 6,000 5,744 t
5,504 {
I
1 i
! 5,000
j 4,325
4,069
4,000
i
3,321
3,151,083,082
3,000 ff
! 2,447 S
I
1,942
j 2,000 1,71�653
149�44
�,368
1,2011 081938 f
# i
I 1,000
j 610 529 526 511 509 504 484 419 391 I
1328 304 290 279 273 200 185 149 147 120 107 84 82 48 I
I eJet a\°o ct`Q6 e`caee11 a°eA
eA dayF eQ\ ea oOar atia"� Co ara Ahh�� r •0� o°� ti
�Q, `
0a
`o�c '\ a "5 S e' Qa GJ °5a eaJa 'O', o C� lL s\ � Caa
Go
aF a �O Q CqGo h �� °���° 1 y � � � � �" �" � � °�
�\ h OA � � OhP h�� O O � h � C�co C5 C
� � � h ��
h C
0h
I
1
oj�h P
i
Source:United for Alice,J Robertson and Company
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 14
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Labor Force Participation
Total labor force participation (206,105 people of working age) is down 1-3%across all major cohort areas
from a decade ago. However, it has actually been trending up for people with disabilities, thanks to advocacy
by Morningside, Coastal Community Action Programs, and other regional organizations that offer job
development,training and support services.
Figure 15: Pacific-Salish Labor Force Participation Rate, 2010-2020
100%
79.0%
80%
77.9%
73.9% 71.3%
60% 57.3
60.3%
40%
20%
i
0%
i
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Labor Force Participation Rate and Size (civilian population 16 years and over)
—Prime-Age Labor Force Participation Rate and Size(civilian population 25-54)
Veterans Labor Force Participation Rate and Size,Age 18-64
Source:JobsEQ
Figure 16: Pacific-Salish Labor Force Participation for People with a Disability, 2012-2020
50%
i 45% 42.8% 43.5%
I
40%
35%
30%
l .
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% - - - - - - - -- ._.__. . ---. ...___ ... - ----- - --
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 15
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Educational Attainment, Unemployment and Poverty
Just over 40%of the region's residents has attained Associate's Degree or higher, and over 82% have a high
school degree or higher certificate/diploma. Unemployment rates are considerably lower the higher a person's
education attainment level.
Figure 17: Pacific-Salish Educational Attainment, Age 25-64: 2020 Snapshot
1
25.7% 26.2%
i 25%
I
i
20% 18.5% i
i
' I
15%
11.9% j
10.0%
10%
i 7.7% i
i
i I
E
5% 3
f i
3
1 Oi _..-
I No High School High School Some College, Associate's Bachelor's Postgraduate
Diploma Graduate No Degree Degree Degree Degree
Source:JobsEQ
Figure 18: Pacific-Salish Ave Annual Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment, 2010-2020
1 16% 14.9%
14%
t 1
t
i
i
12%
k
10% 9.8/0
8% 7.0% {
t
i
6% Y
4% 3.7%
� f
i
3
2%
i
No High School Diploma High School Graduate Some College or Bachelor's Degree or
Associate's Degree Higher
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 16
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
The figures below shows the average decade-long unemployment rate by overall, race cohort and gender.
Overall,the rate grew during and post Great Recession, but has stabilized in ensuing years (COVID data
pending). As the region moves forward, it will be critical to build an inclusive job market through proactive
engagement and promotion of training and educational opportunities. Notably, after nearly a decade of 3-4%
separation, male and female employment appears to have balanced.
Figure 19: Pacific-Salish Unemployment Rate, 2010-2020
i 12/0
10.4% 10.6%
10.0%
10% 9.3% 9.3% i
8.5%
8.1%
8% 7.2%
i 6.6
6.2%
6%
i
i
4%
1
3
i
2%
I '
i
I
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:JobsEQ
Figure 20: Pacific-Salish Ave Annual Unemployment Rate by Race, 2010-2020
------------
18%
16.0%
16%
14/o
0 13.2% 13.5% I
;
11.7%
12%
9.8%
10% 8.6% 9.1%
8% 7.3%
6%
4%
2%
0%
White Black or American Asian Native Some Other Two or Hispanic or
African Indian and Hawaiian Race More Races Latino (of
American Alaska and Other any race)
Native Pacific
Islander
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 17
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 21: Pacific-Salish Ave Annual Unemployment Rate by Gender: 2010-2020
14% 13.3%
12.3% 12.6
12%
10.6% 10.9
9.7%
10% 9.2% 8.9/0 0 9.1%
8.2% 8.6% 8.4% 0 1
8.0% 7.9%
8% 7.5% 7.3%
0 7.0 i
6.8/ %6.5% 6.59,6.3%
6%
4%
2%
0%
f� 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I ■ Male ■Female
I
Source:JobsEQ
As unemployment rates declined,so,too, have poverty rates.The regional poverty level (federally defined vs
United Way ALICE data) has dropped 2.4%since 2012.Yet more than 1 in 10 people in the region struggle to
make ends meet(rent,food, childcare, et al). One critical factor in poverty reduction to date has been the
Affordable Care Act.Those suffering major medical setbacks now have a chance to survive the economic
impact. Uninsured residents have dropped from 13.4%(2012)to 5,3%(2020).
Figure 22: Pacific-Salish Poverty Levels, 2012-2020
16%
0
� 14% 13.9/0 13.2% I
12% 13.7
i
10% 11.3%
I
8%
I
i
6%
j I
4%
f 2%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
i
Poverty Level (of all people) —Households Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 18
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 23: Pacific-Salish Uninsured Resident Population by Percentage, 2012-2020
r 15% 13.4% j
i
I
10% i
t
I 5%
I
0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I Uninsured
i
Source:JobsEQ
Commuting Profile
Over the last decade,the average commute time in the Pac-Salish region has slightly increased.The shift likely
reflects a number of factors, including people finding more affordable housing further from employment
centers and population growth adding traffic volumes on constrained highways and arterials. Public transit use
has declined, but there is hope that growth will occur given the rise of zero-fare transit options (Grays Harbor
{youth}, Mason and Thurston).
Figure 24: Pacific-Salish Mean Commute Time (minutes), 2010-2020
30 26.8 27.4 - -27.8
25.5 25.6 25.5 25.4 25.2 25.2 25.5 26.2
25
20
15
10
5
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:Job5EQ
Figure 25: % of Pacific-Salish Workers that Commute via Public Transportation, 2010-2020
3%
2.0%
2/0
0
1.6%
2%
1%
i
1%
0% -• _. -
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 19
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY LANDSCAPE
Business Establishments
Since 1990,the region has added nearly 5,000 new establishments.Approximately 4,500 of them are,located
in Thurston County.All counties experienced a net decline in establishments during the pandemic, but appear
to be recovering as of mid-2023.
Figure 26:Total Establishments in Pac-Salish EDD by County, 1990-2022
I �
12,000
110,000
I
8,000
1
6,000
4,000 I
I
j 2,000
I
1 0
I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I ri m In al r+ nl �rl dl A A rh In 1-� d, A rn In 1�- m H ri m ul r;
o 0 0 0 o ri o 0 0 0 o ri o 0 0 0 0 . o 0 0 0 0 .-+ o 0 0 CD
i
O r-i N M Ct Ln r� 00 M O ri N d' Ill 1,0 r- 00 M c-i N f'il 'zt IO l0 00 M O r-1
M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O c-I ri i 1 r-i r-i ri ri ri N N
M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
ri ci r-1 a-i ri r-i ri ri r-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I
1
Thurston Grays Harbor j
Source:JobsEQ
Industry Group Cluster Insights
This section provides an overview of regional industry sectors through a variety of lenses. The chart below
shows the location quotient of specific sectors relative to the US as a whole.A score of 1 means industry
presence (employment per capita) is similar to national average. Higher scores mean a heavier presence, and
lower scores lighter presence,than might be expected.
The Pacific-Salish economy continues to have a strong natural-resource based economy,with wood products
and agricultural presence more than double the US average. Public administration is nearly quadruple the
national average, not only because Pac-Salish hosts the seat of state government, but because it is also home
to large swath of publicly managed lands and a major military base.There are also six Sovereign Tribal Nations
located within the Pac-Salish region, each with its own governance and administration.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 20
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 27: Pacific-Salish Industry Groups by Location Quotient, 2023
I
Public Administration 3.92
Wood/Paper 2.59
I
Agricultural 1.68
i
y Food Manufacturing 1.06
! Education 1.04
Construction 0.94
j I
Retail M 0.94
Consumer Services M 0.93
Health 0.92
Utilities 0.91
I
Professional Services 0.69
i
j Media 0.67
Freight Transportation �� 0.62
Auto/Auto-related 0.59
Coal/Oil/Power �Wll 0.55
Financial Services ® 0.52
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Source:JobsEQ
Another way to examine industry sector health is through past performance. In the chart below,the vertical
axis represents the annual average industry group wage, and the horizontal axis the annual average rate of
employment growth over the past decade.The size of the bubble represents the relative number of workers
employed in a specific industry group.
Over the last decade, construction and professional services have far outpaced other industries' rate of growth.
Public administration and health have grown more moderately, but remain among the largest regional
employers. Consumer services and education also remain large employment industries, but had a slower
average annual rate of growth due to the disproportionate impacts experienced by those sectors during the
pandemic.The wood/paper industry group, while still more prevalent here relative to the rest of state and US,
has lost employment as have other manufacturing sectors due to increasing regulations and the rapid advent
of automation.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 21
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 28: Pac-Salish Industry Group 10-Yr Historical Employment Performance, 2012-2022
I
$120,000 I
I
Coal/Oil/Power I
���r� 1.23
$100,000 l J $101,284
d
j Financial Svc.
1.19 - i
$86,091 \ 1
�J Public Admin. I
i
o $80,000 2.02 Utilities
i Media J 2.75
Wood/Paper $77,523
0.68 0.87 $67,942 Professional vc.
$78 986 Freight Tra 4.33 Construction
c $64,128 1.99 _ $70,785
$64,978 % Healt 5.49
I `0 Q60,000 Retai i 2.34 0 $63,789
Education 1.96 $59,00.40
I
i Food Mfg. $51 927 $59,571 i
m 0.48 ` Auto/Auto-related
I m $45,044 3 0,000 1.97 I
iQ
I $62,792
I Consumers Jr Agricultural
1.00 1.09
$33,18 $40,286
$20,000
i
1 j
i
I
$0 j
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
j Average Annual Emp Growth Rate:2012-2022 j
Source:JobsEQ
The graph below shows the annual av growth rate for major industry groups over the past decade.
Figure 29: Pac-Salish Industry Groups,Av Annual Employment Historical Rate (%) Q3 2012-Q3 2022
5.49
I
I
I
4.33
2.75-t
2.34
2.02
1.99_
1.97
1.96
1.23
1
1 09 1.19
.00
0.40 0.8�-�_�-
70.68 -0.48
I
i
- C Cu ' O
C O W
U V 41 3 d `J �'
0 'aN L � \ H
7 W N W 0 = a - N C 1
m E ¢ co ¢ E =o U
U o F C V
-CS O C 7 u w
O U Li-
0 ¢ OD O
V a a`
Source:JobsEQ-------------- --- -- ------------------- --
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 22
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Over the next decade, all major industry groups are expected to experience positive growth. In the chart
below,the vertical axis represents the average annual wage in today's dollars,while the size of the bubble
reflects relative employment volumes and the horizontal axis the estimated annual rate of employment
growth between 2022 and 2032. Overall,growth will be driven by ongoing recovery from the pandemic (e.g.,
return of para-educators to schools, return of retail and consumer service activity) and increased demand for
services among the baby boomer generation (e.g., healthcare,financial service needs). Even Wood/Paper and
Food Manufacturing, which both experienced declines over the prior decade, are projected to see positive
employment growth.
Figure 30: Pac-Salish Industry Group 10 Yr. Employment Growth Forecast, 2022-2032
i
j $120,000
i
Coal/oil/Power
f i
� $101,284
4 O 765 j
$100,000 Financial Svc.
$86,091
I 31759 Utilities j
$67,942
( 730
Public Admin. Con ' n Media
CL$80,000 89 $78,986
63,7
o $77,523 $
i 10,108 Professional Svc. 899
32,091
Z $70,785
= 1
t 20,092
Retail , Health
$60,000 $59,571/// , $59,075
Wood/Paper 13,219 j > Education 23,449
m $64,128 uto/Auto-r lated $51,927
3,661
$62,792 18,257
1V�/) Freight Tran. 1,754
a Jv $64,978 JJ
$40 000 Food Mfg. 3,140
\ Consumer Svc.
$45,044 $33,185
2,231 Agricultural
$40,286 25,269
4,178
$20,000
i
$0
i 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Average Annual Emp Growth Rate:2022-2032
Source:JobsEQ
The following charts show the relative industry growth rates by, a) straight line 10-year forecast; and b)
comparative growth over the past and future decade. Construction growth over the past 10 years was likely
driven by recovery from Great Recession (and also increasing demand/lack of housing supply up to the present
day). Past growth in professional services is likely attributable to former government workers launching news
businesses and a recent flurry of new business starts created during the pandemic (see establishments graph).
The forecast growth of media is based on an anticipated increase in software developers, but also growth at
the Washington State Archives and return to normal attendance at movie theaters.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 23
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 31: Pac-Salish Industry Groups,Av Annual Employment Growth Forecast (%) Q3 2022-Q3 2032
� I
Media 3.33
Health 2.27
Consumer Services 1.93 1
Professional Services 1.58 j
Education i 1.57
Financial Services 1.24
` Utilities 1.23
i Auto/Auto-related 1.19
Construction 1.13
Freight Transportation 1.04
I Agricultural i 1.01
Retail 0.88
Public Administration 0.58 j
Food Manufacturing �� 0.33
Wood/Paper 0.24
Coal/Oil/Power 0.09
I
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 j
Source:JobsEQ
Figure 32: Pac-Salish Industry Group Employment Change, 10 Yr. Hist. and 10 Yr. Forecast
Comparison
6.00
I
I
5.00
I
4.00
3.33
3.00 j
! 2.27 i
ffl 1.93
2.00 1.57 .58
1.01 .19 .13 1.24 .04 .23
j 1.00 .58 .88
__ .. 09 I ---- 0�3 -0.4
ti 0.00 i`Gz" \N
�a o c '�
-1.OQ`°� o e \Q ��,, �:P �a�c \fie lac oc
Quo C e �a yQ
5`
I P� L°�
' I
■Average Annual Employment Historical Rate(%)2012Q3-2022Q3
i
■Average Annual Employment Forecast Rate(%)2022Q3-2032Q3
i
Source:JobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 24
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Core and Emerging Industry Insights
This section provides insights about select industry sectors that have experienced growth or other notable
change over the past five years and/or are forecast to add new or different employment opportunities in the
Pac-Salish region.
Growth in the media sector(the fastest growing in the region) has been driven by Software Publishers and Info
Services (as more services went online during the pandemic). Conversely, in-person subindustries declined
(movie theaters,video production), but are expected to return to growth mode post pandemic.A significant
of Media jobs are public sector(primarily State jobs).
Table 4: Media (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022
Industry Ernpl Current 5-Year History 5-Year Forecast
DemandChange
Software Publishers 528 0.77 414 35.8% 275 47 1.7%
Libraries and Archives 237 1.37 -45 -3.4% 158 42 3.3%
Motion Picture Theaters(except 213 1.70 -68 -5.4% 331 74 6.1%
Drive-Ins)
Web Search Portals and All Other
Information Services 150 0.82 81 16.9% 100 27 3.4%
Motion Picture and Video
115 0.35 -153 -15.6% 77 17 2.7%
Production
Media Streaming Distribution,
Social Networks, Other Media 114 0.40 30 6.3% 67 11 1.9%
Networks/Content Providers
Source:JobsEQ
In the healthcare sector, the fastest growing subsectors over the past five years include HMO medical centers
(15.5%), psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals (8.8%) and vocational rehab centers (7.6%). Over the next
five years, annual growth is forecast to be highest for services for the elderly and persons with disabilities
(3.6%), individual family services (3.4%) and offices of physical, occupational and speech therapists and
audiologists(3.3%).
General medical and surgical hospitals will.likely remain the largest overall employer in the sector, but services
focused on the aging population are driving overall growth.The ongoing shift to tele-medicine care will likely
continue to drive down hospital admittance rate as well as average length of stay.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 25
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Table 5: Health (ChnnuraK]u«rer) lnPacific-Sa|imhE0C� Q3 2022
Current 5-Year History 5-Year Forecast
Change Demand Growth Growth
t 0.70 -1 8 6 -0.80 2,356 312 1.3%
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 4, 3
Disabilities
Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly 802 1.60 46 1.2% 658 96 2.3%
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers 508 1.54 80 3.5% 323 63 2.4%
Offices of Physical,Occupational and Speech
Offices of Miscellaneous Health Practitioners 405 1.63 65 3.5% 243 48 2.3%
Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals 334 1.27 115 8.8% 219 48 2.7%
Disability Facilities
Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except 252 0.99 53 4.9% 143 26 2.0%
Source:JobsEu
The Professional Services sector has experienced considerable growth across the board,with the exception of
facilities management services given the work from home workforce shift. Logistics consulting (36%) and
scientific technical consulting services (25.1%) have grown the fastest,while computer-related services have
been and will continue to be the primary driver of growth volume. and All subsectors are expected to grow
moderately over the next five years.
mc|0sSa|ish Economic Development District 26
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(ccos)
Table 6: Professional Services (ChnnuraCluster) inPacific-Sm0shEDC, Q3 2022
Current 5-Year History 5-Year Forecast
Industry Empl Ann%
Change , Demand Growth Growth I
Temporary Help Services 3,316 OF96 1,101 8.4% 21229 199 1.2%
Offices
Management Consulting Services
Scientific and Technical Consulting Services 465 1.68 313 25.1% 280 52 2.1%
Process, Physical Distribution,and Logistics 327 1.78 257 36.0% 200 38 2.2%
Consulting Services
Other Professional,Scientific,Technical 314 0.60 43 3.0% 165 21 1.3%
Services
Computer Facilities Management Services 305 3.20 98 8.1% 174 44 2.7%
Source:Jouasu
As noted earlier,the construction sector has undergone considerable growth since the great recession—the
fastest annual rate of growth for any major industry sector. Even with this growth, the region continues tnlack
sufficient stock ofaffordable residential housing.
The baseline forecast for industry growth does not consider several recent developments. For example,the
City of Olympia and PaclVltn Workforce Development Council are partnering on multiple job training programs
including "construction cohort"that is training dislocated workers for jobs in the building industry. This
Pacific-Sa|ish Economic Development District 27
Comprehensive Economic Development Saratc«v(ccos)
program has also taken place in Grays.Harbor and Pacific County, and will be exported to the other Pac-Salish
locations. Local community colleges are also exploring the possibility of creating advanced construction
training through their continuing education departments.These two additions could help stimulate the growth
rate of construction careers locally, rather than remaining dependent on outside labor.
Table 7: Construction (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022
Current 5-Year History 5-Year Forecast
Change % Demand Growth Growth
I
New Single-Family Housing Construction 1,132 1.96 246 5.0% 617 66 1.1%
(except For-Sale Builders)
Residential Remodelers 922 1.17 261 6.9% 494 52 1.1%
Commercial and Institutional Building 843 1.04 265 7.8% 456 52 1.2%
Construction
Nonresidential electrical contractors 665 0.90 141 4.9% 387 38 1.1%
Residential plumbing and HVAC contractors 654 0.82 206 7.9% 376 37 1.1%
Residential roofing contractors 499 2.90 101 4.6% 272 25 1.0%
Nonresidential plumbing and HVAC
464 0.72 23 1.0% 268 27 1.1%
contractors
Residential electrical contractors 377 0.81 74 4.5% 220 23 1.2%
Residential site preparation contractors 377 1.20 73 4.4% 214 19 1.0%
Residential painting contractors 358 1.30 44 2.6% 181 20 1.1%
All other residential trade contractors 338 0.90 103 7.5% 195 19 1.1%
Highway,Street,and Bridge Construction 327 0,57 35 2.3% 187 19 1.2%
Residential drywall contractors 294 1.57 57 4.4% 151 17 1.1%
Residential finish carpentry contractors 212 0:83 32 3.3% 120 13, 1.2%
Source:JobsEQ
While agriculture does not drive regional economic output with respect to gross domestic product, it is
nonetheless integral and essential to the primarily rural portions of the district.The Pac-Salish region is host to
traditional farm-based agriculture as well as covered crops and shellfish/fishing sectors.All four counties have
operating shellfish farms, and the region is one of only that supply clam, oyster and geoduck products to the
US and beyond-hence the LQ of 158.
Over the last several years, most local ag sectors have experienced little employment growth or, in some cases,
declines. Most of the industry challenges are directly attributable to the pandemic and subsequent impacts,
including supply chain challenges, lost customer relationships and labor shortages. Even as these obstacles
subside, only menial growth is forecast for the five years ahead.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 28
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Table 8:Agricultural (Chmura Cluster) in Pacific-Salish EDD, Q3 2022
Industry Empl Current 5-Year History 5-Year Forecast
Change Demand Growth Growth
Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover 674 16.29 -145 -3.8% 530 52 1.596
Animal Production (Proprietors) 487 0.99 -68 -2.6% 272 13 0.5%
Shellfish Farming 477 158.71 -26 -1.1% 336 4 0.2%
Crop Production(Proprietors) 450 1:31 7 0.3% 250 12 0.5%
Nursery and Tree Production 420 4.34 75 4.0% 328 30 1.4%
Shellfish Fishing 332 21.22 -63 -3.4% 199 15 .0.9%
Finfish Fishing 222 9.21 35 3.5% 130 8 0.7%
Mushroom Production 189 17.26 -102 -8.3% 152 .17 1.7%
Support Activities for Forestry 180 5.83 2 0.2% 149 26 2.7%
Chicken Egg Production 171 7.43 -39 -4.1% 124 4 0.5%
Other Vegetable and Melon Farming 109 1.48 11 2.2% 87 9 1.6%
Source:US Census of Agriculture
Results from the 2022 Census of Agriculture are not expected to be released until early 2024. However,.data
from the 2017 Census provide a number of insights into local ag operations.As of 2017,the Pac-Salish
agriculture profile included:
• 2,339 total farms (and 4,095 producers) covering 237,984 acres . f
• Average farm size ranged between 52 and 224 acres, depending
on the county
• The%of total county land used for farm operations ranged from
5%-10%
• The#1 farm use varies by county:
o Grays Harbor-Woodland (70%)
o Mason-Woodland (47%)
o Pacific-Other{Cranberries}(38%)
o Thurston-Cropland (36%) :
• Among all US counties, Pac-Salish counties are notable/top
producers of: `
o Aquaculture
t
o Christmas Trees
o Berries
o Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture and Sod
-
• Notable for future planning: _ �- , _5•
o Most farms have internet access .
o Under 3%farm organically
o Just 12-16%sell directly to consumers
o Almost all farms are family owned -,
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 29
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Table 9: Pac-Salish Agricultural Statistics (2017)Grays
ff
I .
Harbor
#of Farms 469 324 346 1,200 2,339
Land in Farms(total acres) 105,233 18,136 52,365 62,250 237,984
Average Farm Size(acres) 224 56 151 52 -
%of Land in Farms 6% 5% 7% 10% -
Farms by Use(%total use)
Cropland 16% 20% 30% 36% -
Pastureland 6% 14% 13% 25% -
Woodland 70% 47% 19% 27% -
Other 8% 20% 38% 13% -
i
Notable Rankings for All US Counties by Market Value of Ag
Products Sold (3,077 Counties,ranks in top 600)
Christmas Trees 379 64 440 61 -
Aquaculture 65 5 17 8 -
Fruits,Tree Nuts, Berries 420 - 188 287 -
Milk from Cows 500 - 591 316 -
Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture,Sod - 770 - 64 -
Vegetables, Melons, Potatoes - - - 389 -
Poultry and Eggs - - - 254 -
Sheep, Goats,Wool, Mohair, Milk - - - 396 -
Horses, Ponies, Mules,Burros, Donkeys - - - 432 -
Other Animals and Animal Products - - - 250 -
Total Producers 810 561 604 2,120 4,095
i
Notable Characteristics(%farms that)
Have Internet Access 81% 83% 88% 87% -
Farm Organically 1% 1% 3% 3% -
Sell Directly to Consumers 13% 16% 12% 16%Are family farms 97% 93% 95% 97% -
Source:US Census of Agriculture
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 30
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Occupation Insights
The first chart below shows the relative level of employment volume by major 2-digit occupation code.The
figure below shows the same data, but for 6-digit specific occupation category along with mean wage and
location quotient. Of the top 20 regional occupations,fewer than half offer mean wages above$50,000.
Figure 33: Pacific-Salish EDD Employment Volume by 2-Digit Occupation Codes: Q3 2022
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 20,923
Sales and Related Occupations 15,205
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 15,015
i
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 13,390
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 12,411
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations 10,353
i
Management Occupations 10,240
Healthcare Support Occupations 8,574
Construction and Extraction Occupations 8,500
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 8,290
Protective Service Occupations 6,523
Production Occupations 6,171
Community and Social Service Occupations 6,157
Installation, Maintenance,and Repair Occupations ® 6,077
Computer and Mathematical Occupations I® 5,827
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance... 5,735
Personal Care and Service Occupations 5,075
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations ,11�1111 3,171
Arts, Design, Entertainment,Sports, and Media... 2,771
I
Farming, Fishing,and Forestry Occupations 2,583
Architecture and Engineering Occupations 2,556
i
Legal Occupations 2,104
bH
C l 'x? -•�T�'�' -' ���<r� � �.�,� �- saw -,{
;,,arc a t�' �` �y, a �r+`� -y���'�� ...,.�„'���,�.. �► ly�'rd4�''�,� ��
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 31
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Table 10:Top 20 6-Digit Pac-Salish Occupations by Volume, Q3 2022
Mean Ann
Occupation
Wages
Fast Food and Counter Workers 5,004 $35,000 1.35
Retail Salespersons 4,526 $38,900 1.04
Cashiers 3,957 $35,500 1.03
Personal Care Aides 3,634 $35,900, 1.21
Office Clerks,General 3,276 $45,400 1.05
Registered Nurses 2,862 $95,000 0.82
Stockers and Order Fillers 2,668 $39,300 0.94
Laborers and Freight,Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 2,523 $39,600 0.77
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 2,445 $40,500 0.95
General and Operations Managers 2,408 $118,700 0.68
Customer Service Representatives 2,378 $44,100 0.73
Secretaries and Admin Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive 2,230 $50,500 0.97
Business Operations Specialists,All Other 2,118 $77,000 1.53
Teaching Assistants, Except Postsecondary 2,085 $42,000 1.55
Software Developers 2,018 $122,300 1.01
Waiters and Waitresses 2,012 $45,200 0.86
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 1,914 $58,400 0.79
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education 1,836 $83,600 1.23
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers 1,795 $53,200 1.06
Bookkeeping,Accounting,and Auditing Clerks 1,795 $52,300. 0.92
With respect to gaps, the figure below shows the anticipated unfilled positions by volume, each year, over the
next ten years.The list is filtered to include occupations that require a 2-year degree or higher(family wage
jobs).
irk
1 0 V
c 55
/k.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 32
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 34:Av Annual Occupation Gaps over 10 Years in Pac-Salish, 2-Yr Degree or Higher(Q3 2023)
- —- ----_-- - ---- -------- --- - --------- -- -- --- ---- - _.----- ---------- ----- ,
Lawyers($121,100) 6
i
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Counselors($55,900) i 7 II!
Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists($72,700) ® 7 f
{
I Financial Managers($131,600) 7
l
Construction Managers($110,400) 8
I I
I � !
Elementary School Teachers,Except Special Education($83,600) 11
i
Management Analysts($87,500) 15
General and Operations Managers($118,700) I 18
I
Registered Nurses($95,000) 25 !
Software Developers($122,300) 33 I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source for All Three Charts:lobsEQ
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 33
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Resiliency
The Pac-Salish region is manifestly resilient, but not without challenges ahead. Historically,the region has
survived cataclysmic geological events, massive economic shifts—in particular, new policies and rules
governing forestry and fishing, transformative land use regulations (Washington State's Growth Management
Act) and multiple recessions. Most recently, along with the rest of the globe,the region endured the COVID-19
pandemic. Unlike other areas,the regional GDP declined just .6%during the pandemic, but sprang back with
9.6%growth in 2021.The sections below outline areas of ongoing concern regarding the region's ability to
remain resilient or otherwise respond to environmental, socio-economic or geologic threats, as well as the
systems now in place to address these issues as the arise.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Challenges:The impacts of climate change are likely to exacerbate existing regional challenges—namely
wildfires,flooding and severe weather patterns. In addition to threats to human life and property,these
events may result in degradation to wildlife habitat and destruction of natural systems that serve as buffers. All
counties in the region operate Emergency Management operations that help to combat these events, in
partnership with State and Federal partners.
SOCIOECONOMIC
Portions of the region are susceptible to high unemployment.While Thurston County is home to a relatively
stable state government sector,the other counties are periodically impacted by mass layoff events, primarily
at manufacturing-based employers. Overtime,the region has developed strong rapid-response systems, led by
PacMtn Workforce Development Council and supported by various Chambers of Commerce, Economic
Development Councils and other partners. By far, layoffs and resulting unemployment disproportionately
impact those who have not attained a 2-year degree or higher. Multiple efforts are underway to promote
continuing education post-high school.
LEGACY INDUSTRIES
The Pacific-Salish region was built on forestry,fishing/aquaculture and logging (and related ship-based
exporting).Today,these industries remain the backbone for many local economies, but face increasing
operational barriers. Some of the challenges they face are outlined below.
Marine Industry Cluster
The ocean-based fishing industry faces multiple challenges. Increasingly strict rules limit seasonal access and
catch volumes. Some of the marinas that provide safe harbor and repair services are aging beyond functional
use. Critical access points are at risk of becoming inoperable for lack of dredging. For value-added operations,
a dearth of workers limits production and export capacity.Additional funding and coordination at the local,
state and federal level will be required to navigate these obstacles.
While demand for aquaculture products is high, it is increasingly difficult to find and retain workers. More
pressing is the periodic arrival of invasive species. Predators like the European Green Crab and ghost shrimp
can decimate shellfish stocks. But potentially effective treatment measures(first, carbaryl and more recently,
imidacloprid) are often opposed by those fearing larger ecological damage. Ongoing, intensive coordination
with the Washington State Department of Ecology, US Corps of Engineers and other regulatory agencies is
desired so acceptable solutions can be implemented.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 34
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Other challenges that will require innovation and partnerships to overcome include ocean acidification, sea
level rise, and workforce recruitment and training.
On the positive side,Westport in Grays Harbor County serves as a Pacific Northwest Hub for seafood landings,
processing and cold storage (it is rated as the#1 commercial fish landing port in the state, and loth in the
nation). New processing advances have reduced reliance on sometimes hard-to-find seasonal workers, and
increased wages for year-round workers.State and Tribal hatcheries have helped restore stocks and stability
and, in 2023,Washington experienced the largest crab harvest on record. Similarly, a recent study by
Washington Sea Grant (2020) indicated the Washington Coast Region had a combined gross regional product
of$6.57 billion. Other positive and notable findings:
• Seafood product preparation and packaging provided 771jobs and $318M in economic output
• Commercial Fishing provided 1484jobs and $92.7M in economic output
• Boat building provided 333 jobs and $101.5M in output
• Ship building and repairing provided 127 jobs and $40.11VI in economic output— Kevin Decker, Coastal
Economist/Coastal Resilience Team Lead, Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington
Wood Products Industry Cluster
Logging was forever changed in the early 1990's,with passage of the Endangered Species Act. However,the
industry remains a centerpiece of many rural communities and the core component for the broader wood
products value add industry cluster. Present challenges include worker shortages—e.g.,timber fallers, loaders
and truck drivers, some resistance to logging and shipping (e.g., vocal opposition to Port of Olympia log
shipping), and fluctuating market demand.
Agriculture
The primary challenge many local farmers face is reestablishing customer and market connections in the
aftermath of the global pandemic, and finding new workers to ramp up production. WSU Extension and other
workforce partners have initiated workforce training, recruitment and retention efforts to help stabilize and
grow employment in the sector.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Economic Disaster
COVID-19 provided a real time test for the region's ability to respond to economic crisis. While all counties
operated some version of a collective impact model (Working Washington recovery gran administration, et al),
Thurston County's example, Thurston Strong, offers a model to build on with respect to a regional approach.
Prior to the pandemic,Thurston County community and economic development practitioners met regularly to
coordinate various efforts. When the pandemic arrived,that group was converted to an "action team"that
was supplemented with nonprofit leaders and tasked with mapping the business and worker portion of the
response.
Even before state or federal aid arrived,the group worked with distilleries to produce hand sanitizer and the
Thurston EDC-managed PTAC program to source masks. Both products were made available to hundreds of
businesses. They created a website to share industry-specific safety information and other helpful information
including how to complete EIDL and SBA forgivable loan applications. When resources did arrive,the team
used data to drive allocation decisions. Ultimately,the team distributed over$26 million in aid to industry
sectors most impacted by the pandemic, and over 30,000 people utilized the website for information and
assistance. Each team member was responsible for engaging city and county councils as well as local tribes.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 35
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Another form of potential disaster is a mass layoff event. Such events have occurred periodically in the region.
However, in the most recent cases (Cosmopolis Specialty Fiber closure, Ostrom Mushroom departure, Grays
Harbor Call Center facility exit),the community response blunted negative impacts by diverting displaced
employees into new career pathways.The four ENS Workforce Development Council and associated Chamers
of Commerce coordinate on these and many other issues through a long-standing cooperative network.
Physical Disaster
The Pac-Salish region is particularly susceptible to major geologic disasters including windstorms, earthquakes,
tsunamis and even volcanic activity from nearby Mt. Rainier. While the region has recovered from earthquakes
(Olympia, 2001) and volcanic eruption (Mt.St. Helens, 1980),the most adverse impacts could actually come in
the form of one or more tsunamis.
An estimated 107,281 out our 450,000 person region are potentially at risk from tsunami flooding following a
Cascadia Subduction earthquake, depending on the size event and location of the epicenter.This figure
includes permanent residents only, and excludes other estimates including visitors (17,000) and day workers
(25,000). By far,those likely to be most impacted reside along coastal shorelines or in lowland bay and riparian
areas. Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties account for over 100,000 of those at risk. But even the inland sea
communities of Mason and Thurston Counties could experience flooding.
It is estimated that,even following proper evacuation protocols,some 14,000 to 50,000 people will be unable
to reach high ground before the first wave strikes some 30 to 60 minutes after the quake. In a worst-case
scenario,Aberdeen, Ocean Shores,Westport, Long Beach, Hoquiam, Cosmopolis, and Taholah and Shoalwater
Bay Indian Reservations could be completely decimated. Figures 35 and 36 show the relative risk by location.
For more information,visit the Cascadia Rising emergency response exercise website:
https://cenv.wwu.edu/files/2021-01/Cascadia Rising low O.pdf
Figure 35:Washington Residents in the Tsunami Inundation Zone (tam summer weekend scenario)
Whatcom --- --- --
San Juan' l RESIDENTS
12,796 I --- 60,000
i
■Skagit : . i ff ---___-. . ...1 25,000
7.1.51
11 �
Claltam t ---; 6,000
1 7,427
o
I
Snohomish —LI—.—
.02,411
■Jefferson Kitsap ,.'
4,203 5.765'
■: King_
Mason■ i■3,591
5,544
Harborpierce.
1 Thurston 7,337.
804
Pacific
36,158
WahlE. kum
r 1X4 $ ty , WAS NGTON
i t •�' r
Source:Washington Department of Emergency Management
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 36
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 36: Likely Tsunami Inundation Zones, Pac-Salish Region
1
j MONTESANO.
OCEQRES NV - EF2 EEN - ' —
S
VrESTRO
S
f
101j
Yt OVD �
t
1
i •I .i Sl`1 .
1 1
LONG ! - -
BEACH'
I.eeen d 0 tc.U. __ _ a �.
•-Ccyrtp&7undel.ra 0 :31c Tsunami
Inundation `^�
Gtl Lnna Area of Operatic n Highways Zone WA WI'Srr kA
Pre' 0.-:arcaoWW
Eie:c�•.xon -- Q
P 101n,cit,�LnOCa Coastal y7g`rea%I� a�a7 IM17f310EC
Source:Washington Department of Emergency Management
Even without the tsunami factor, 100%of the Pacific-Salish region is located within violent earthquake shake
zones.The region is also frequented by major storms.The following is an abbreviated list of Presidentially
declared disasters over just the last two years:
• Major DR-4650-WA(Dec. 26, 2021-Jan., 15 2022)
Severe Winter Storms, Snowstorms,Straight-line Winds, Flooding
• Maior DR-4635 (Nov. 13-15, 2021)
Flooding and Landslides
• Maior 4593-DR-WA(Dec. 29 2020-Jan. 16,2021)
Severe Winter Storm, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 37
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
SWOT Analysis
The following SWOT Analysis inputs are drawn from a variety of sources, but in particular,findings from the
CEDS data analysis, review of community plans and direct input from stakeholder engagement.
STRENGTHS
• Economic Development Partnerships—the region has a long and successful history of coordinating
economic development activities. Core partners include the four Economic Development Councils,
Chambers of Commerce, Port Districts, Regional Councils of Government(COGs), Workforce Development
Council and City/County Councils.
• State Capitol Presence—As the seat of state government, Olympia and surrounding environs benefit from
a wide range of stable,family-wage jobs occupied by residents in all four Pac-Salish counties.State
government activity also generates incredible supply chain opportunities for the private sector, and in
particular,the professional services, retail, real estate and financial services sectors.
• Geographic Location—The Pacific-Salish region is a preferred destination for residents and visitors alike,
prized for its natural beauty and relative affordability. Ocean beaches, salmon-bearing rivers,glacial
mountains and picturesque lakes and landscapes are all accessible within minutes.Seattle and Portland
are just 60 to 100 miles away, and accessible by vehicle, rail and air.
• Unique Legacy Industries—Timber Products and Marine Industry Clusters are particularly bountiful in the
Pac-Salish region relative to other locales.They provide family-wage jobs and a healthy local supply chain
base.
• Established Industry Clusters and Real Time Data Tracking—The region has already identified industry
clusters and implemented sector navigator support systems for primary and emerging industries. Real-
time data analysis allows workforce planners to build training and promotion packages for in-demand
workforce needs.
• Native American Tribal Enterprises—Area tribes operate a diverse array of successful enterprises that
generate revenue and support broad employment across the region. Operations include fisheries, golf
courses, resorts, casinos,tobacco dispensaries, retail destinations and much more.
• Access to Education—All Pac-Salish communities are served by institutions of higher learning, including
Grays Harbor,South Puget Sound and Olympic Community Colleges, and two four-year universities in
Thurston County; The Evergreen State College (Olympia), and Saint Martin's University(Lacey).The region
is also becoming increasingly adept at creating shorter, skills and trades-based training cohorts that help
non-college bound individuals access higher paying employment opportunities.
WEAKNESSES
• Lack of Affordable Workforce Housing—All counties are years behind in producing sufficient affordable
housing stock to accommodate growth, or even in some cases,to retain affordable options for existing
workers/residents. This challenge has been exacerbated by the shift to work-from-home options, as
workers from more affluent areas migrate into the region and drive housing costs up, as well as conversion
of existing stock into second homes or temporary vacation rentals.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 38
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
• Lack of Childcare—The lack of affordable childcare stifles economic growth and security, particularly for
women and minority populations. Even before the pandemic, many households found the cost of
childcare, or the lack thereof,to be an impediment to having multiple income earners. Post-pandemic,
with the rapid rise in rent and mortgage insurance expenses, many households need co income earners
and childcare services are now even scarcer.
• Under 50%of High School Graduates Pursue Continuing Ed—Overall,fewer than half of the regions
graduating high school seniors complete the FAFSA or pursue continuing education of any kind post high
school.Statistics show that students who don't complete at least some form of certificate training are
twice as likely to experience unemployment and very unlikely to earn enough income to purchase a home,
save for retirement or even financially survive a major medical event. Work is underway to change that
dynamic in select high schools and should be expanded regionwide.
• Few Large-Scale Private Sector Employers—While the region boasts a fairly diverse economy,there are
few large, high-wage private sector employers (e.g., biotech, advanced manufacturing,financial services).
While there has been growth in the logistics sector,those developments do not generate the same level of
jobs per square foot or economic multipliers as other more intense uses.
• Aging Workforce—In some portions of the region,the population is aging at a much faster rate than the
rest of the country.This has left some employers struggling to find new workers, or younger generations to
take over existing businesses after the current owner retires.
• Dearth of CDFI Lenders—The Pac-Salish region, perhaps because of its relative lower-density population,
does not host many active Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) lenders. CDFI lenders
inject capital into areas that otherwise lack access to financing.They serve historically underrepresented
populations and ventures that may not qualify for traditional loans(e.g., unbanked, underbanked,
immigrants, etc.) CDFI programs can help jump-start untapped segments of our communities' secure
capital for housing, business start-ups and other essential services.
OPPORTUNITIES
• New Energy Economy—Pac-Salish is an ideal location for alternative energy research and development,
testing and production.Whether wind, electric, biofuels or other alternative energy source, collectively,
the region has the locations and workforce required to potentially operate as a new energy hub.
• Wrap-Around Business Support Services—The Thurston EDC currently operates or hosts a variety of
business training and support services, including PTAC and Tune Up and Scale Up business training through
its Center for Business and Innovation. Greater Grays Harbor, Inc. also offers a wide range of business
training and support services.These services could be expanded to other areas of the Pac-Salish region. In
particular, more help will be needed to facilitate business ownership transitions as current owners retire.
• Ports—There are nine Port Districts' in the Pac-Salish region with various ocean, river and inland sea access.
Cargo terminals primarily serve break bulk customers, as most west coast container traffic is handled by
deepwater ports in Vancouver, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland-Vancouver, Bellingham-Anacortes, Oakland-San
Francisco and Los Angeles-Long Beach.The Port of Grays Harbor is the only deep-draft port directly on the
Pacific Ocean in the State of Washington capable of handling ocean going vessels and, as such, is classified as
a Global Gateway. It is also the fastest Pacific Ocean route to Asian markets by one full day.
' Port of Allyn(Mason);Port of Grapeview(Mason);Port of Shelton(Mason);Port of Grays Harbor(Grays Harbor);Port of Olympia(Thurston);Port of
WiI lap a Harbor(Pacific);Port of Peninsula(Pacific);Port of Ilwaco(Pacific);Port of Chinook(Pacific)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 39
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Local cargoes range widely,from biofuels to milk cows,grains,vehicles, ores wind turbines and more. The
majority of local ports were originally created to serve fishing and shellfish related purposes. Over time,
Port's roles and capacities have expanded greatly. Modern Washington State ports, including those without
maritime access, are actively involved in a plethora of economic development activities including broadband
fiber expansion, and industrial property purchase and reclamation. Each has Industrial Development
Revenue Bonding (IDRB) capacity and public taxing authority(should the right taxpayer ROI present itself).
The Ports' singular authorities and powers make them a natural starting point for launching major industrial
and/or tourism related initiatives in the future.
• FTZ#216—The South Puget Sound Foreign Trade Zone serves Thurston, Mason, Lewis and Kitsap Counties, and is
administered by the Port of Olympia. FTZs allow American companies to defer, reduce or eliminate Customs
duties on products admitted to and processed within the zone.The cost savings leaves more profit to invest in
workers, communities or economic expansion. Grays Harbor is served by FTZ 173, administered by the Port of
Grays Harbor.There is considerable opportunity to increase use and activity in both zones.
• Farm to Market Growth—WSU Extension and other partners have been helping the ag community better
connect with local markets.These efforts are expected to expand with the advent of the Ag Hub in Tenino
and growth of local farmers' markets regionwide.
• Sea to Market Growth—Washington Sea Grant is working with
coastal communities to build direct to consumer programs for
shellfish and commercial fishing operations as regional interest in
local seafood has increased post-pandemic.
• Supply Chain Gaps—With access to real time data, all"Pac-Salish
communities can identify local supply chain gaps and pursue - --= i
targeted industry engagement and recruitment.
• Full
Creative Arts Accelerator—The creative economy—performing '�'•�_, = —� �
arts,festivals and other cultural events—face dire financial
circumstances. Innovations can spur creative sector equity and _ 7 4 _
resilience. While there are resources for creatives, most technical = r
and financial assistance is focused in two regions and not
accessible to emergent Creative Districts.A new Arts Economy
Equity Accelerator(concept stage) could facilitate creative arts -�
success in the region via laboratory space, implementation kits
(how to grow a creative district), advocacy, and sponsorship. r y
• Tax Increment Financing—A tool widely used in other states, but continually in exploratory more in
Washington,TIF could enable cities to invest in infrastructure improvements up-front via bonding (usually
the barrier to getting started) and pay for those enhancements through new revenue generated by the
resulting economic development project by collecting incremental taxes over a reasonable period of time.
A related "pay as you go" model would encourage developers to invest considerable capital into
infrastructure improvements up-front, but then allow them to be "repaid" if and when tax revenues grow
at an appreciable rate,thus vindicating the overall public investment.
• Opportunity Zones- Designed to make long-term capital available to low=income communities. US
investors will be able to defer taxes on capital gains reinvested in Opportunity.Funds that invest in eligible
purposes such as stock, partnership interest, and business property. More focus should be used to draw
investors and make use of this opportunity.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 40
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
THREATS
• Aging and Undersized Infrastructure—Infrastructure challenges are various. On the transportation front,the
Nisqually Bridge is a pressure point that restricts interstate commerce on 1-5 in Thurston County, and will
need to be elevated to avoid flooding in coming years. Regionwide, many bridges are at risk of failure (e.g.,
Grays Harbor County has 321 bridges of which 31 are classified in poor condition...about 1 out of 10 bridges),
while roads in rural areas are to narrow and completely devoid of bicycle amenities.All communities lack
charging stations to serve electric vehicles. Most rural and suburban communities lack substations required to
power new industry or neighborhoods. Local marinas lack infrastructure to serve increasingly large boats, and
even those with a recreational focus have outdated equipment and facilities.
• Lack of Stable Funding for Economic Development—Local EDCs are designated Associate Development
Organizations (ADOs)for their respective counties and receive an annual stipend from the State.To fully
fund operations,they pursue municipal contracts, public grants, corporate sponsorships and membership
dues, all of which are uncertain revenue flows at best. No money is dedicated to business recruitment
activities. Few funds are set aside for emergency infrastructure, business innovation or entrepreneurial
start up grants. In Washington,the use of public funds for private profit(incentives) is constitutionally
prohibited.Without steady funding,the EDCs and the counties they represent will be at a disadvantage
relative to communities in other states when it comes to recruiting and supporting business and industry.
• Growth Management Act Limitations for Rural Areas—Outside of major cities and a few medium-sized
towns, it is difficult to develop large facilities in the Pac-Salish region. While the Washington State GMA is
effective in preventing urban sprawl and the proliferation of inefficient urban systems (water,sewer, et al)
in urbanized areas of the State (e.g., along 1-5 corridor), it may have unintended consequences for more
rural communities where land availability does not necessarily align with urban system capacity.
• Lack of Funding and Support for Essential Waterway Dredging—Seaports struggle to secure approval and
funding for dredging, putting fishing and export industries at significant risk.
• Artificial Intelligence—While not exclusively a local problem,the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and
robotics threatens to replace many traditional jobs. It has already happened in manufacturing, retail and
even food service. While there are certainly productivity advantages to Al,the region must quickly identify
other employment opportunities for those holding at risk of replacement occupations.
• Invasive Species—As referenced earlier, invasive species such as the European Green Crab and Ghost
Shrimp pose an existential threat to the shellfish industry. But similar risks have and could again impact the
wood products and agricultural industries. Current effort to combat these plagues are not centralized or,
as of yet, sufficiently effective.
• Sea Level Rise—Many Pac-Salish population centers are built along shorelines susceptible to the impacts
of sea level rise. In most cases, it will be impractical to simply"move" billions of dollars in infrastructure to
higher ground. Beyond shops and offices, lodging facilities and tourism related infrastructure, most cities
operate wastewater treatment plants in these shore-adjacent, low-lying areas. For most,the solution will
likely involve expensive investment in sea walls and other diversionary engineering.
• Cascade Subduction Zone Earthquake/Tsunami—Perhaps the most formidable threat of all is the prospect
of a major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and resulting tsunami. Over 100,000 people could be
directly impacted by flooding, and many more by disruptions caused by the earthquake.While coordinated
planning is ongoing, more urgent action is required to develop and promote evacuation routes, stand up
community safety centers, install warning alarms and relocate the most at-risk communities.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 41
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Infrastructure
Most critical infrastructure needs are described in the SWOT Analysis, Goals and Objectives and Action Plan
sections. Updated project inventories and capital improvement plans are managed through the respective
counties, cities, Councils of Government and Regional Planning Councils.
The highest priority needs in the region include:
• Flood protection
• Climate adaptation strategies and associated infrastructure enhancements
• New or improved electric substations for commercial, industrial and prospective neighborhood sites
• Repair and expansion of aging marina infrastructure
• Water system expansion
• New or expanded sewer and wastewater treatment capacity
• Commercial waterway (Port) dredging and fill removal
• Bridge repair, expansion and relocation
• Safety and multimodal enhancements for rural roads and highways
• Industrial land identification and staging
• Brownfields cleanup
• Workforce housing construction to eliminate shortage and improve affordability
• Specific recreation and tourism infrastructure (sports facilities,visitor centers,EV charging, et al)
• Tsunami towners and warning systems in select locations
Another major district-wide infrastructure need is broadband and/or other high-speed communications
expansion.All four counties are currently studying the issue with current progress detailed in the following
section.
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
As shown in Figure 37, large swaths of the Pac-Salish region do not yet have internet.This is due to a
combination of access barriers and affordability. Currently, all four counties have completed or are actively
working on broadband fiber assessments (most through a multi-partner Broadband Action Team). The
following sections provide a broad overview of conditions and plans for high-speed communication
infrastructure in each county. More detailed analysis is contained within separate broadband action plans—
i.e.,the level of information that would be included in any future federal funding requests.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 42
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Figure 37:% of Population with No Internet
> 12-15
Mason county` j' r
L) 0-6
Grays HarborCounry / r ��.
Tsunami Risk Zones
Tlurstoo-coanty
Lewis County
PaciB Counry
Y4ahkiakum County
Source:ACS Community Survey
Grays Harbor
Rural portions of Grays Harbor are not serviced by fiber and certain urban areas lack adequate speeds. Due to
low population densities in some portions of the County, the cost of extending fiber in financially infeasible
without subsidy. The PUD continually analyzes system expansion opportunities. Recently,the Washington
State Public Works Board awarded Grays Harbor PUD a $50,000 grant to study the feasibility of expanding the
PUD fiber network in East Grays Harbor County.The study will look at the viability of extending the fiber
network from Sund Road in South Elma to the Cedarville substation and the surrounding area, Porter, the City
of Oakville and the Chehalis Tribal Center. When built, it will benefit emergency responders, cities, schools and
residents by bringing improved broadband services to the area.
Mason County
According to Mason County's recently completed Broadband Action Plan,the areas of Mason County most in
need of improved internet access and services are those furthest from its urban core. The extreme corners of
the County lack population densities;this currently makes fiber expansion cost prohibitive without external
resources.Additionally, small to medium-sized communities with underground utilities, even directly off of
main roads are also typically unserved. Other recognized obstacles to the expansion of telecommunications in
the rural areas include workforce,funding, supply chain issues, and outdated or inadequate infrastructure.
The areas outside of Shelton, Belfair and Allyn are recognized by the state as Urban Growth Areas with
commercial and industrial centers that serve the surrounding communities. Both of those areas contain large
pockets of underserved Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSL)s. Efforts have been made in the more recent
past to secure state and federal funding for the expansion of infrastructure to underserved and unserved areas
and increase broadband speed to meet the state's new guidelines.The process of creating the Plan has
illuminated several key issues and service gaps for the provision of broadband and outlined the County's goals
and objectives to remedy them.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 43
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific County
Over the past several years, a Pacific County Broadband Working Group has been evaluating broadband and
other communications technology access and speeds throughout the county.Their general conclusion is that
broadband offerings are scarce, relatively high-cost and provide low-bandwidth or inconsistent speeds. Along
the way,the Working Group has led or coordinated a variety of actions, including identification of barriers
(topography, storm events, many rural pockets with difficult last-mile challenges) and development of a vision
statement.They estimate that at least$71VI in dark fiber will be required to establish adequate redundancy
and attract additional ISP providers that end-user retail service.
Some progress is already underway, however,following the announcement of Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
(RDOF) awards. By 2027,Spectrum Charter will build broadband infrastructure to census blocks in the Long
Beach Peninsula, Lumen Technologies to Willapa Valley along SR4, and Starlink to the remaining unserved
Pacific County census blocks.
What is clear is that communications infrastructure is a top priority for Pacific County given its remote location
and the ever-growing need to communicate, work, shop and learn online. It will likely require a variety of
technological solutions to serve its unique geography, including networking equipment, fixed wireless,satellite
and expanded fiber distribution sites. Implementation will require considerable external private and public
investment.
Thurston County
A recent Thurston Broadband Survey shows that many areas remain unserved or have below par
download/upload speeds.South and the northwester tip of the county have the most significant service gaps.
A recent study conducted by NoaNet concluded the county's urban areas are adequately served, but
customers are unsatisfied with the cost of service provided. It was also noted that existing providers have
plans to update broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
The Nisqually Tribe and Thurston County entered into an Interlocal Agreement and are currently undertaking a
major broadband effort throughout Thurston County.The initial project, undertaken by the Nisqually,was
creating a robust fiber-optic networkion Tribal lands intended to connect their Tribal members. Since then,
they have expanded the initiative to include other tribes through an inter-Tribal network beginning with the
Chehalis Tribe. Recognizing the potential impacts of such an endeavor, many municipalities, governmental
entities, entrepreneurial associations and residents have expressed their support of, and many have sought to
partner with the Tribe to bring critical broadband access to their communities and businesses.
One such important partnership is the Thurston County Broadband Action Team (BAT). Thurston County and
the Nisqually Tribe participate in the Thurston County BAT along with the Thurston Regional Planning Council,
Port of Olympia, and the Thurston County Economic Development Council.The Thurston County Commission
has awarded the Nisqually$500,000 for a community wide survey of need, and an additional$465,000 for
engineering of routes.The Tribe's multi-phased project would guarantee five gigabytes per second (5gbps)
download speeds and lgbps upload speed to thousands of Thurston County residents.The Tribe has
commissioned the help of Redline Communications and Astound, which plan to offer an affordable lgbps
upload speed starting at$69.00 a month.The Nisqually broadband projects are open-access fiber lines, which
will allow for greater competition among service providers, and potentially lower prices and higher quality
service, or even new innovations.
In 2017,the Tribe created Nisqually Communications, a fiber-optic construction service that works with large
internet providers on the installation of aria] and underground fiber-optic lines.As part of the multi-phase
plan,the Tribe has applied and/or secured major state and federal funding for their broadband project that
will support the first phase of their project slated to build 42 miles of fiber connecting their Tribal networks to
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 44
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
the Chehalis Tribe.The project would require the Tribe to weave their networks through Lacey and Tumwater
which will provide high-speed internet access to an estimated 1,200 residential homes, 29 businesses and 16
anchor institutions.
The second phase of their project would connect Nisqually Tribal land to a property along Marvin Road,just
north of Interstate 5, and will supply high-speed internet service to more Tribal members, several Tribal anchor
institutions and businesses. During the third phase of the project,the Tribe envisions building fiber
connections from Rochester to Littlerock.This phase stands to connect 860 residents, a library, a school,
multiple farms and businesses.
The Tribe secured a sizable grant from the State Broadband Office in the amount of$6.775 million as well as a
$2 million CERB grant that will greatly assist in supporting their vision.Additional funding will be required to
complete remaining phases.
I
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 45
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Vision, Focus Areas, Goals and Objectives
VISION STATEMENT
The Pacific-Salish region sustains a resilient and inclusive economy
through intentional diversification and investment, coordinated
workforce and enterprise support activities, and a proactive culture
of innovation and adaptation.
FOCUS AREAS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following provides an overview of four Pac-Salish Vision Focus Areas and associated goals and objectives.
Focus Area: Industry and Entrepreneurial Networks (IEN)
GOAL: Maintain a diverse and thriving economy with resilient core industry sectors and strong entrepreneurial
support systems that drive job, wage and taxable sales growth.
OBJECTIVES
IEN1: Expand support.networks to maintain and grow the region's major industry clusters, including:
o Advanced Manufacturing o IT-Tech
o Food Systems o Tourism and Hospitality
o Health Care o Timber Products
IEN2: Develop and implement strategies to attract and grow manufacturing, aerospace and R+D operations
as American corporation re-shoring intensifies.
IEN3: Monitor, support and invest in the development and expansion of emerging industry sectors.
IEN4: Create diverse economic opportunities and infrastructure through Port District and Tribal Enterprise
partnerships.
IEN5: Develop and implement strategies to support recreation, creative arts industries and attractions.
IEN6: Develop an opportunity fund that enables regional leaders to identify and recruit industries that help
close supply chain gaps and attend best practice learning workshops and events.
IEN7: Provide full spectrum entrepreneurial assistance that stimulates new enterprise development and
ensures continued success as businesses grow.
IEN8: Create stable revenue streams and facilitate catalytic investments that allow local downtown or similar
central commercial areas throughout the region to thrive.
IEN9: Identify and invest in emergent BIPOC business enterprises and networking systems.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 46
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Focus Area: Infrastructure Capacity and Modernization (ICM)
GOAL: Maintain and expand physical infrastructure systems to accommodate economic growth, ensure
continued operation of core industries and facilitate worker and freight mobility.
OBJECTIVES
ICIVII: Maintain an adequate supply of shovel-ready commercial and industrial land to support economic
development opportunities.
ICM2: Proactively clean, prep and activate brownfield sites for redevelopment opportunities.
ICM3: Facilitate development of housing stock at all price levels to accommodate need and ensure workers
can remain or relocate to the region.
ICM4: Expand water and wastewater treatment capacity and service areas.
ICM5: Ensure adequate energy to serve underdeveloped economic opportunity areas and projects.
ICM6: Extend high-speed communications capacity to more locations throughout the region.
ICM7: Maximize rail shipping, service area coverage and rail-adjacent business opportunities regionwide.
ICM8: Ensure regional Ports, cargo yards and shipping channels are able to operate at maximum potential.
ICM9: Renovate and modernize regional marina and marine service facilities and related infrastructure.
ICM10: Improve road and bridge safety and carrying capacity and add multi-modal capacity where viable.
ICM11: Continue evolving public transit to better connect workers to employment centers through innovations
like zero-fare options,flexible routes and expanded hours of operation.
ICM12: Work with state and federal officials to increase availability of ongoing roadway maintenance funds for
rural communities.
Focus Area: Economic Opportunity for All (EOA)
GOAL: Create diverse education workforce training and career pathway options to serve a fully inclusive cross
section of our region.
OBJECTIVES
EOA1: Expand early childhood education opportunities to all families.
EOA2: Ensure all children are made aware of career options and opportunities at an early age.
EOA3: Identify accessible, affordable childcare solutions for more working households.
EOA4: Introduce career pathway education and awareness programs to all ages and underserved populations
based on empirical data.
EOA5: Offer creative workforce training programs that facilitate participation for all people.
EOA6: Support workforce training and preferred employer programs that create work opportunities for
formerly justice involved populations.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 47
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Focus Area: Environmental Stewardship and Resiliency (ESR)
GOAL: Enhance environmental stewardship to preserve the Pac-Salish region natural competitive advantage
and build emergency response networks and capabilities to expedite recovery from natural disasters.
OBJECTIVES
ESR1: Protect against the anticipated increase in coastal and riverine flooding.
ESR2: Reduce exposure to and mitigate outcomes associated with wildfires.
ESR3: Balance development and conservation to preserve critical habitat and species health.
ESR4: Maintain and improve water quality to support habitat, human health and aquaculture.
ESRS: Invest in hatcheries and related species restoration efforts that support local economies. _
ESR6: Secure funding to purchase mitigation lands associated with invasive species impacts.
ESR7: Identify beneficial uses for highly treated wastewater.
ESRB: Foster the development and adoption of renewable energy sources.
ESR9: Enhance tsunami and earthquake evacuation options and expand advance warning capabilities.
ESR10: Develop a catastrophic emergency mitigation plan or fund to expedite communications,shelter and
transportation restoration.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 48
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Priority Actions and Projects
The following is an inventory of next-step and shovel-ready priority projects for all Pac-Salish counties.This is
essentially a "short-list" of catalyst projects that will stimulate or preserve economic stability region-wide, and
each is directly connected to a CEDS Vision Focus Area.A more exhaustive inventory of additional project
priorities is included in Appendix C.The priorities list will be reviewed and updated annually.
Grays Harbor
City of Hoquiam Westfork Dam Removal and Ground Water Supply
The City of Hoquiam constructed a concrete dam on the West Fork of the Hoquiam River in 1956. The dam
allows the City to divert 2.2 cubic feet per second from the river for the City's water supply.The dam is located
at approximate river mile 10.8, about north of the water treatment plant. For more than 20 years the City has
considered removing the West Fork Dam and developing an alternative drinking water source due to the need
for significant improvements and maintenance of the dam, and because the adjacent Highway 101 is a source
of potential water contamination. Additionally,the West Fork Dam is the#2 fish passage barrier removal
priority in a basin-wide list of over 2,000 barriers. Removal of the dam would fully restore natural alluvial
processes and quantitatively improve streamflow, benefiting native fish species like salmon, which are
experiencing dramatic declines in the region.
The overall goals of the project include: Removing a major fish passage barrier; restoring the ecosystem
around the existing dam; adding up to 2.2 cubic feet of flow to the river; diversifying the City's water supply;
adding physical capacity for the City's water supply; improving the City's aging water supply infrastructure; and
reducing infrastructure upkeep costs.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, ESR)
City of Ocean Shores Tsunami Tower
Ocean Shores'Vulnerability.To support local tsunami planning efforts, the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division assessed variations in exposure of 24
communities along Washington's outer and Strait of Juan de Fuca coasts.They considered how much of a
community's developed land and how many of its residents, visitors, and businesses are within the tsunami
hazard zone.They also considered what percentage this represented of the community's total population and
assets. Ocean Shores,for example, has approximately 7.5 square miles of developed land in the inundation
zone. Because this represents 100%of Ocean Shores' developed area,the potential losses from a tsunami and
the impact such losses will have on the community are likely to be substantial.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ALL)
Port of Grays Harbor Westport Marina Modernization
Economically,the Westport Marina Modernization is a retention and redevelopment project that is required to
continue to generate the economic impacts the Marina is directly responsible for today.The Grays Harbor
region plays a major role in the commercial fishing industry of Washington State and the Nation.Westport is
the largest fishing port in Washington ranking number one in commercial seafood landings in the State and
tenth in the nation for seafood volume, 19th for value of catch.This activity directly supports nearly 2,300 jobs
and generates over$227 million in business revenue each year. Commercial fishing, recreational fishing,
seafood processing,yacht building and tourism are the major economic drivers of the community. All of these
key industries are directly impacted by the condition of the marina moorage infrastructure.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ALL)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 49
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Aberdeen-Hoquiam Flood Protection Project—North Shore Levee and Levee West
The Aberdeen-Hoquiam Levee Protection projects will protect the Cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam from
flooding.The North Shore Levee project will construct a 6.2 mile levee across the two cities, providing critical
flood protection and removing over 3,100 properties from FEMA's mapped Special Flood Hazard Area. The
project will build resiliency in the face of future flood events, retaining existing businesses,jobs, and residents
which have been on the decline in the community.The total construction cost of the North Shore Levee is
estimated to be approximately$78 million.The North Shore Levee—West Segment project, estimated to cost
$40 million,will build a 4.7 mile levee (earthen, concrete, sheet pile) bordering the west side of Hoquiam.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, ESR)
Port of Grays Harbor Terminal 4 Expansion and Redevelopment Project
The Port's largest marine terminal customer,AGP, has invested over$100 million at its Terminal 2 Storage &
Export Facility since 2001.Their existing facility is the largest soymeal exporter on the West Coast.AGP will be
investing over$123 million more by constructing an additional export ship loading facility at Terminal 4.To
accommodate this expansion, the Port will need to make significant improvements. This includes a new rail
line within the marine terminal complex, redeveloping a 50-acre pontoon casting basin site, adding new site
access and roadway improvements, and finally, upgrading the marine fendering and stormwater systems.
Design and permitting are funded and underway. Construction funding for Port investments includes$25.5M
from a USDOT MARAD Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP)grant awarded in 2022. The Port is
finalizing the construction funding package with local, state and federal sources. Construction is to begin in
2024, with AGP targeting operations in 2025. The Port anticipates needing$55,000,000 in additional funding to
complete the project. When complete,the initiative will result in 80 long-term jobs and doubling of export
cargo capacity.The products shipped will aid in increasing renewable fuel and global food security stores.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, ICM)
Highway 12 Rail Separation Project
This project is integral to the success of both the urban core of Grays Harbor and outlying coastal regions. Due
to geographical factors, including an immovable large bluff to the north, and the Chehalis River to the south,
major transportation corridors (state highway, rail,shipping) are constrained by a narrow bottleneck at the
easter end of Aberdeen—gateway to all other communities in the west as well as large tourism destinations.
As trains grow longer and more frequency(28,000 cars annually), delays (1.6 million tourists annually) are
growing exponentially,which in turn causes economic ripple effects and delayed emergency response times.
The proposed grade separation will allow unrestricted multimodal access into and out of the commercial area.
All engineering phases have been completed, and all partners identified. Remaining steps include installation
of access ramps from Eastbound and Westbound US 12, grade-separation at Chehalis Street, installation of a
roundabout at the US12—Newell Street intersection, removal of the signal at US 12, closure of a major at-
grade crossing, a right of way plan and documentation for all improvements, and grade-separated active
transportation lanes for pedestrians, bicycles, and wheelchairs. Remaining costs are estimated at $74,000,000.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, ICM)
Mason County
Workforce Housing Initiatives
As the housing shortage continues,the local workforce is becoming priced out of the market. Infrastructure is
needed to develop residential housing, as a workforce housing shortage has been identified as a barrier to
workforce development, local business growth, and recruitment for Mason County.Shelton is working with
multiple developers on identified parcels for housing projects that could bring close to 4,000 units online.To
meet this current need,the City of Shelton will require three water storage tanks, costing approximately$5
million each, or a total of$15 million.
(Primary focus areas addressed: EOA, ESR)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 50
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Core Infrastructure Development and Expansion
Infrastructure capacity is crucial for Mason County's economic and community health and is foundational to all
of our other projects/goals. Not a single development area in Mason County is ready to support a business
relocating here, and our existing businesses face significant economic, disaster, and changing
industry/technology challenges. In the Shelton UGA,to avoid a moratorium on development, Shelton and
Mason County must implement sewer infrastructure projects that total over$20 million. Mason County PUD
No. 3 has at least two substation projects at close to$10 million each needed to support industries looking to
locate with our county.
The Belfair UGA is located less than 5 miles from the Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC), a designated U.S.
Department of Commerce Foreign Trade Zone, Bremerton National Airport, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
(PSNS).This prime location coupled with large tracts of undeveloped land in proximity to critical urban
infrastructure, makes Belfair a leading candidate for attracting new employers and accommodating much-
needed workforce for Mason County.This collaborative $15 million project between Mason County and Belfair
Water District to fund expansion of infrastructure within our Belfair UGA to include reclaimed water,
additional capacity of the sewer plant, and connector roadways and fund Well 6 development and connection
needed for that expansion.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, ESR)
Workforce Training and Upscaling
Mason County is pursuing sector-specific workforce training. Olympic College has a $5.5 million project to
transition the Shelton campus from one that primarily offers dual-credit),to a campus that primarily focuses
on the trades with an emphasis on emergent, but rapidly-growing industries. K-12 institutions prepare
students for post-secondary success by helping them developing the necessary skills and knowledge. It is
essential to provide meaningful work-based learning experiences that align with regional assets and promote
equity, inclusivity, and diversity.The local school districts have initiated a $1.5 million program focusing on
technical education and employer coordination, but at least$3 million in additional funding is needed to reach
full impact. it aims to provide sector-specific support and training for high-demand local sectors and jobs.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, ESR)
Pacific County
Pacific County Housing
The availability of housing at all income levels is an impediment to economic growth and well-being. Units
available for purchase or rent are few. Median price increased 126%from 2018 and 2023 ($160k-$362k).
While there are 16,000 total housing units,fewer than 10,000 are permanently occupied.Vacation,seasonal,
and second homes comprise 34% of the housing stock.The age of housing is also of concern,with less than
15%of housing built since 2000. Over 40%of housing is at least 50 years old, with many plagued by hazardous
building materials, outdated electrical systems,failing plumbing and septic systems, and energy inefficient
insulation,windows, or roofing. According to Washington State, Pacific County has a shortage of 2,996
housing units (150 per year for 20 years).The target of bringing 100 units of workforce housing to market each
year,for the next 5 years, would require approximately$4 million per year, or a total of$20 million.
(Primary focus areas addressed: EOA, ESR)
Washington Coast Business Accelerator(WCBA)at Bendiksen Landing,South Bend
Coastal areas face maritime industry challenges: sea Level rise; Ghost Shrimp and Green Crab proliferation;
ocean acidification; industry infrastructure maintenance; and loss of workforce.The WCBA aims to become a
hub for sustainable maritime industries, by creating innovation, collaboration, entrepreneurial opportunity and
workforce training.The Port of Willapa Harbor will provide initial facility for WCBA, and other coastal locations
may be incorporated overtime. Bendiksen Landing is a 7.4 acre former cannery with Willapa Bay access and
Highway 101 frontage, obtained by the Port through a grant from WA Department of Commerce for the
purpose of renovating and launching the Washington Coast Business Accelerator.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 51
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Future funding will be used to renovate the site, develop credentialled programs in collaboration with Grays
Harbor College in marine industries, offer business development startup programs in collaboration with
Enterprise for Equity and provide site location for UW Washington SeaGrant. Keeping these programs moving
forward and expanding them to meet growing demand will cost$1-1.5m annually.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, EOA)
Pacific County Water,Wastewater and Septic System Capacity Planning
Increased demand is straining treatment capacity of commercial systems.Additional wastewater treatment
facilities are needed to support long-term growth for all incorporated and unincorporated area. When local
systems experience failure, adequate backup systems do not exist. Multiple areas are dependent upon Dunal
Aquifer as the only feasible source of drinking water. High infiltration rates and shallow groundwater table
leave the aquifer susceptible to contamination from septic tank effluent, storm runoff, seawater inundation
and chemical fertilizers. There is no septage treatment facility within the 932 square mile Pacific County area.
Unified county-wide planning is needed to address long term needs to accommodate the current population
and anticipated water, wastewater management and septage treatment needs for the future.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, ESR)
City of Raymond Downtown Revitalization Master Plan
Historic downtown Raymond will soon serve as a hub for workers, shoppers, students, residents and visitors.
Recent public investment and private redevelopment has stimulated the return of commerce (restaurants,
store, cafes,workplaces)for the largest, most diverse city in Pacific County.The City will soon construct a new
City Hall and Firehouse.The next phase in commercial and residential developments will require a needs
assessment and Mainstreet style planning to restore the city to a strong economic engine for the region.
Raymond is seeking$100,000 to prepare an economic development and urban design strategy.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, EOA, ESR)
Planning for Downtown Revitalization—City of Ilwaco
The future of Ilwaco depends on the presence of a strong local economy that serves the needs of residents and
commercial interests. Improving downtown is a central focus of this effort.The City will provide incentives for
property owners who invest in buildings and make them available for new businesses.The City's significance
on Long Beach Peninsula cannot be overstated,featuring a Coast Guard Station, Cape Disappointment State
Park, Port of Ilwaco, cultural sites, artists and commercial and recreational fishing. Ilwaco has established a
revitalization committee and is seeking$100,000 to prepare an economic development/urban design strategy.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, EOA, ESR)
Thurston County
Olympia Workforce Housing Initiatives
The City has multiple projects associated with increasing workforce housing, but is significantly behind demand
for affordable housing—specifically working individuals earning 40%-80%of AMI.The City has acquired
previously blighted sites to redevelop into affordable housing, but the target of bringing 80-100 units of
workforce housing to market each year,for the next 5 years, would require approximately$2.5 million per
year, or a total of$12.5 million.These funds are used for site acquisition and predevelopment expense.
(Primary focus areas addressed: EOA, ESR)
Olympia Downtown Parking Structure
The City owns and manages multiple surface lots in the downtown core of Olympia. Consolidation of surface
lots into a parking structure would expedite the repurposing of existing lots into affordable workforce housing.
The City will need $1.5 million to initiate predevelopment ad design work for the parking structure.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, IEN, EOA)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 52
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Olympia Low Barrier Workforce Development Programming and Housing
The City successfully piloted two low-barrier workforce development programs with one-time pandemic
recovery dollars.These programs (Olympia Career Hub and Journey2Jobs) have actively prioritized individuals
from marginalized communities.The City is also launching a tiny home village that will provide emergency
housing for individuals enrolled in these programs, but with funding that expires in 2025. Keeping these
programs moving forward and expanding them to meet growing demand will cost$1.3-1.5m annually.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, EOA)
Olympia Lower Budd inlet Sea Level Rise Improvements
Downtown Olympia, a regional employment and visitor activity hub, is highly susceptible to sea level rise given
the community's location on the shores of Puget Sound (lower Salish Sea). Recent king tides have breached
boardwalks and caused flooding.The City and regional partners have developed an adaptation and
infrastructure plan. Implementation is estimated to cost $75m, including shoreline and estuary restoration,
infrastructure improvements, waterfront access improvements, and property acquisition.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, EOA, ESR)
Olympia US 101 Interchange Project
Limited access to US 101 in West Olympia impacts public safety and the economic health of this region.The
resulting congestion compromises response times to Capital Medical Center and other emergency medical
facilities. Heavy traffic increasingly affects the free flow of freight, hampers accessibility to a vital economic
center, and causes significant delays to the traveling public.The City of Olympia seeks to build new ramps on
US 101 at Kaiser Road and Yauger Way. City is still seeking funding for construction of this project with a
current construction estimate of$35 million.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, ESR)
Lacey Midtown Project
Lacey Midtown will serve as a hub for workers,shoppers, students, residents and visitors. Recent public
investment and private development/redevelopment has yielded restaurants,store, cafes, workplaces, and
recreations spots for this dynamic urban community where people "live, learn, earn, and create."The next
phases will increase densities, expand employer opportunities and build additional connections between the
employment center,Saint Matin's University, City Hall and surrounding retail, commercial and residential
developments. Construction is envisioned to begin between 2024-2027 at an initial cost of$5-7 million.
(Primary focus areas addressed: IEN, EOA)
Lacey Pacific Avenue Project
This project rejuvenates the area by capitalizing on nearby bike trails, road improvement, and better/easier
access to bike trails. Plans call for landscaping that attracts more visitors with bike "rest stops"for those using
the trails, and place-making structures such as arches and overhead lighting/across the street. Construction is
anticipated to begin between 2004-2006 at an anticipated initial cost of$ $2-3 million.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, IEN, EOA)
Tumwater Capitol Boulevard Corridor I Former WSDOT Headquarters Campus
Capitol Boulevard is a major arterial and auto-oriented despite interest in a pedestrian-friendly area for
commerce and community. It has not attracted private investment, with many brownfield properties vacant.
The City adopted a Corridor Plan with three goals: improve business climate/conditions; safety/transportation
options; aesthetic appeal.The plan identifies the former WSDOT Headquarters Campus as the single most
important redevelopment for catalyzing investment and job creation.The brownfield site is 12 acres. Existing
structures will be demolished in 18 months; environmental assessment is ongoing.The City intends to
purchase the site and transfer ownership to a developer. The plan envisions mixed-use buildings (retail, office,
residential),with public sector amenities and critical utility infrastructure.The City will seek EDA Public Works
Program funding to support brownfields redevelopment and extension of utility infrastructure to the site.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, IEN, EOA)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 53
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Tumwater Brewery District I The Knoll,The Warehouse Valley, and the Historic Brewery
The Brewery District encompasses 300 acres comprised of brownfields, recreation, residential and commercial
areas, and Deschutes River waterfront. Past uses and recent contamination created brownfields infeasible to
redevelop without public investment. Despite being in the city,the properties are not connected to utilities. A
Brewery District Plan (2020) has four goals: strong sense of place (pedestrian access/gathering places, distinct
identity); transportation (access); economic activity; improve function/appearance of built environment.
(Primary focus areas addressed: ICM, IEN, EOA)
The plan endorses job creation and workforce development, and a set of implementation and phasing
strategies to assist in transitioning the Brewery District into a multi-modal activity center with a mixture of
housing and neighborhood-serving businesses.The results of that effort made it clear the community desired
progress that would honor Tumwater's brewing heritage, while meeting present community needs. There are
three brownfield sites prioritized for redevelopment:
• The Knoll
This privately-owned site is 4 acres.This site was last active in 2003. Three structures remain on site from
the former brewery, including the 5-story brewhouse (footprint: 75,900 sf, GSF: 265,600 sf),the 3-story
office and bottling facility(footprint: 30,000 sf, GSF: 73,000 sf), and a 4-story fermentation and storage
facility(footprint: 6,000 sf, GSF: 33,500 sf). The site experienced a fire in 2018, rendering it unusable. The
current owner is working with an architectural on designs for a vertical mixed use development(retail,
office, and residential). Concurrently,the City will be conducting.environmental assessments in 2024 with
support from an EPA Community-Wide Assessment grant.The site's greatest challenges are lack of utilities
(water,sewer, power),the lack of transportation access, contamination, and the cost of demolishing the
existing burnt structure. Demolition is estimated to cost $12 million.The City will seek EDA Public Works
Program funding to support brownfields redevelopment and extension of utility infrastructure to the site.
• The Warehouse Valley
This privately-owned site is 22 acres and hosts a large warehouse (footprint: 250,000 sf, GSF: 300,000 sf)
with three covered rail spurs.Various small structures also remain on site: a mix of storage, maintenance,
decommissioned power station and auto repair for the brewery's fleet. A portion of the site is intersected
by rail (Union Pacific) with an overpass (Capitol Boulevard bridge).The warehouse is reusable, attracting
private sector attention for: sound and film studio, manufacturing and distribution, hydroponics,sports
venue/athletics facility. Site challenges: lack of utilities (water, sewer, power), access, contamination, and
flooding. City designs for flood remediation and riparian improvement suggest a cost of$7 million.
Greatest challenge: lack of access. Due to site layout and railroad, degrading condition of sole bridge to
site, above-grade access to the site is necessary to provide vehicle access and avoid conflicts with rail. Cost
for design, right of way, and construction.is estimated at$60 million.The City will seek EDA Public Works
Program funding to support brownfields redevelopment and extension of utility infrastructure to the site.
• The Historic Brewery.
While most former brewery properties ceased operation in 2003, several have been vacant since
Prohibition in 1920. In total,there are 35 acres with 200,000 sf of historic multi-story structures.The
current owner has a vision to rehabilitate the historic brewery into a world class destination that could
include tourism and hospitality amenities, restaurants and retail, craft brewing facilities, and public
amenities.A site feasibility study is underway, with a focus on analyzing demolition and rehabilitation
costs, access and parking, and connection to utility infrastructure.The City is committed to continuing
restoration of the adjacent publicly-owned historic properties, and exploring public-private funding
opportunities like grants and tax-increment financing.The City will seek EDA Public Works Program funding
to support brownfields redevelopment and extension of utility infrastructure to the site.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 54
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Economic Development Partners
In addition to, and in support of,the many businesses that drive economic progress,the Pacific-Salish region is
host to many economic development partners.The following is a representative, but not necessarily
exhaustive, list of entities that may help advance economic initiatives in the future.
Grans Harbor County
• APEX Accelerator • Grays Harbor Transit
• Blue Zones Grays Harbor • Greater Grays Harbor, Inc
• Center for Inclusive Entrepreneurship • Hoquiam Business Association
• Chehalis Basin Flood Authority • Impact Washington
• City of Aberdeen • Montesano Chamber of Commerce
• City of Cosmopolis • PacMtn Workforce Development Council
• City of Elma • Port of Grays Harbor
• City of Hoquiam • Quinault Corporate Enterprises
• City of McCleary • Quinault Business Enterprises
• City of Montesano • Quinault Nation
• City of Ocean Shores • Satsop Business Park
• City of Westport • Summit Pacific Medical Center
• Downtown Aberdeen Association • The Moore Wright Group
• Economic Development Association • Timberland Regional Library System
• Elma Chamber of Commerce • Washington Department of Commerce
• Enterprise 4 Equity • Washington Economic Development Association
• Grays Harbor Broadband Action Team • Washington Sea Grant
• Grays Harbor College • Washington State Microbusiness Association
• Grays Harbor County • Washington State University Extension
• Grays Harbor County Council of Governments • Westport/Grayland Chamber of Commerce
• Grays Harbor PUD • Westport Marina
• Grays Harbor Small Business Development Center • WorkSource Washington
Mason County
• APEX Accelerator • Port of Dewatto
• City of Shelton • Port of Grapeview
• Enterprise 4 Equity • Port of Hoodsport
• Impact Washington • Port of Shelton
• Mason County • Shelton-Mason County Chamber of Commerce
• Mason County PUD No. 1 • Shelton School District
• Mason County PUD No.3 • Skokomish Tribal Nation
• Mason Economic Development Council • Squaxin Island Tribe
• Mason General Hospital and Family of Clinics • Timberland Regional Library System
• Mason Transit Authority • Washington Department of Commerce
• North Mason Chamber of Commerce • Washington Economic Development Association
• North Mason School District • Washington State Microbusiness Association
• Olympic College a Washington State University Extension
• PacMtn Workforce Development Council • WorkSource Washington
• Port of Allyn
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 55
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific County
• APEX Accelerator • Pacific County Voices United
• Cape Disappointment Coast Guard Station • PacMtn Workforce Development Council
• Chinook Indian Nation • Port of Chinook
• City of Ilwaco • Port of Ilwaco
• City of Long Beach • Port of Peninsula
• City of Raymond a Port of Willapa Harbor
• City of South Bend • PUD#2
• Economic Development Affiliate partners • Raymond,South Bend,Ocean Beach, Naselle SDs
• Enterprise 4 Equity • Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
• Grays Harbor College • Timberland Regional Library System
• Ilwaco Merchants Association • Tokeland North Cove Chamber
• Impact WA • Washington Department of Commerce
• Long Beach Merchants Association • Washington Economic Development Association
• Ocean Beach Hospital • Washington Small Business Association
• Ocean Park Area Chamber • Washington Sea Grant
• Pacific County • Washington State Microbusiness Association
• Pacific County Childcare Alliance • Willapa Bay Enterprises(Shoalwater Bay Tribe)
• Pacific County Economic Development Council • Willapa Community Development Association
• Pacific County Health Department • Willapa Harbor Chamber
• Pacific County Immigration Services • Willapa Harbor Hospital
• Pacific County Tourism Bureau • WorkSource Washington
• Pacific County Transit
Thurston County
• APEX Accelerator • South Sound Military Communities Partnership
• Center for Business&Innovation • South Thurston Economic Development Initiative
• City of Lacey • Squaxin Island Tribe
• City of Olympia • SW WA Growers Coop
• City of Tumwater • Tenino Chamber of Commerce
• City of Yelm • The Evergreen State College
• Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis Reservation • Thurston Chamber of Commerce
• Enterprise 4 Equity • Thurston County
• Experience Olympia&Beyond • Thurston County Broadband Action Team
• Foreign Trade Zone 216 • Thurston County Legislative Partnership
• Lacey Makerspace • Thurston Craft Brewing&Distilling IPZ
• Minority Business Development Agency • Thurston Economic Development Council
• National Association of Government Contracting • Thurston Regional Planning Council
• Nisqually Indian Tribe • Thurston Thrives
• NW Cooperative Development Center • Timberland Regional Library System
• Olympia Downtown Alliance • Tumwater Chamber of Commerce
• PacMtn Workforce Development Council • Washington Center for Women In Business
• Port of Olympia • Washington Department of Commerce
• Rochester Chamber of Commerce • Washington Economic Development Association
• Saint Martin's University • Washington State Microbusiness Association
• SBA Small Business Innovation Research • Washington State University Extension
• Small Business Development Center • West Olympia Business Association
• South Puget Sound Community College • WorkSource Washington
• South Sound Lacey Chamber of Commerce • Yelm Chamber of Commerce
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 56
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Evaluation Framework
The Pacific-Salish EDD evaluation framework will likely evolve over time. At least initially, the Board will
evaluate the following start up tasks and data indicators:
Start-Up Tasks:
• Economic Development District approved and launched
• Operating funds secured
• Operations space confirmed
• Executive director retained
• Bylaws developed and approved
• %of priority actions implemented or underway
Data Indicators:
All indicators have established baselines and will be tracked annually unless otherwise noted.
• Population change by county and region
• %households living below ALICE threshold (produced biannually)
• Educational attainment rate by race and ethnicity
• Prime-age labor force participation rate by race and ethnicity
• Unemployment rate by race and ethnicity
• Income by race and ethnicity
• #of business establishments
• Rate of growth by industry category and employment volume
• Gross Regional Product(GRP)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District 57
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Appendix A - Community Engagement Inventory
MASON COUNTY
EDC Board of Directors Focus Group: May 11, 2023
• Amy Asher, Mason Transit Authority • Lisa Perry, Simpson Lumber
• Jennifer Baria, Mason EDC • Ray Peters,Squaxin Island Tribe
• Kristy Buck, Port of Shelton • Brian Sayler, Mason County
• Jennifer Capps, Mason General Hospital • Joe Schmit, City of Shelton
• Tiana Dunbar, Mason EDC • Judy Scott,South Sound Construction
• Lynn Eaton, Mason PUD 3 • Allison Smith, Olympic College
• Geoff Farrington,Skydive Kapowsin • Trade Schmitt, Ridge MP
• Karin Leaf, Mason EDC • Wes Taylor,Taylor Shellfish
• Donna Moir, Heritage Bank • Sharon'Trask, Mason County Commissioner
• Jim Morrell, PCF Credit Union • Jessee Wyeth, Shelton School District
• Mark Nault, OCCU
2"d EDA Visit—July 31, 2023 infrastructure specific discussions
• Meeting 1: Mason County.PUD No. 1
• Meeting 2: City of Shelton
• Meeting 3: Mason County PUD No. 3
• Meeting 4: Mason County
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
EDA/Laura Ives Team Day Visit: May 3, 2023
Summit Pacific Group, Elma
• Casey Duff,Senator Cantwell Rep • Brad Thomas,SPMC
• Josh Martin,SPMC • Jull Warne, County Commissioner
• Bernie O'Donnell, Rock Construction,
Grays Harbor.College Group,Aberdeen
• Ed Brewster, Grays Harbor College • Carli Schiffner, Grays Harbor College
• Holly Duffy, Grays Harbor College • Lisa Smith, Grays Harbor College Foundation
• Nicole Lacroix, Grays Harbor College
Grays Harbor PUD Briefing Group(lunch hour)
Briefs:
• Flood Protection Project • Grays Harbor PUD
• Port Marine Terminal 4 and AGP Expansion • Grays Harbor County
• Quinault Indian Reservation Relocation • City of Ocean Shores
• Quinault Enterprises Wellness Center
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District A-1
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Participants (in-person and zoom):
• Nick Bird, City of Aberdeen • Rob Hanny, GH PUD
• Sara Bisson, City of Ocean Shores • Ryan Hendricks, Quinault Indian Nation
• Lynnette Buffington, Greater Grays Harbor • Kris Koski, Port of Grays Harbor
• Schuyler Burkhart, GH PUD • Jon Martin, City of Ocean Shores, Mayor
• Ruth Clemens, City of Aberdeen • Kelsey Norvell, Greater Grays Harbor
• Stephanie Conway, Greater Grays Harbor • Bernie O'Donnell, Rock Construction
• Ian Cope, GH PUD • Daniel Pailthorp,Senator Patty Murray
• Mark Cox, Grays Harbor County • Commissioner Vickie Raines
• Vicki Cummings, GH Council of Governments • Haley Schanne, Congressman Kilmer(06)
• Zana Dennis, GH Council of Governments • Alissa Shay, Port of Grays Harbor
• Casey Duff,Senator Cantwell • Brian Shay, City of Hoquiam
• Kayla Dunlap, Port of Grays Harbor • Lisa Smith, Grays Harbor College Foundation
• Tony Enzler, Quinault Corporate, COO • Rep.Jim Walsh,WA Legislature (19th)
• Candie Gleason, Greater Grays Harbor • Senator Jeff Wilson,Washington Leg (#19)
Westport Group
Briefs:
• Ocean Companies and Seafood/Maritime Industries
Participants:
• Brian Blake, Ocean Gold Fisheries • Kelsey Norvell, Greater Grays Harbor
• Molly Bold, Port of Grays Harbor • Daniel Pailthorp,Senator Murray
• Lynnette Buffington, Greater Grays Harbor • Tom Quigg, Port Commissioner
• Mike Cornman, Merino's Seafood • Rep.Jim Walsh,WA Legislature (19)
• Casey Duff,Senator Cantwell • Senator Jeff Wilson,WA Legislature (19)
• Kevin Goodrich, City of Westport • Tanya Woods, Westport/Grayland Chamber
Greater Grays Harbor Board Focus Group (Jason Robertson): May 18, 2023
• Reid Bates, Express Employment Pros • Josh Martin, Summit Pacific Medical Center
• Leonard Bauer, Port of Grays Harbor • Kyle Pauley, City of Cosmopolis
• Schuyler Burkhart, Grays Harbor PUD#1 • Lisa Perry,Sierra Pacific Industries
• Anthony Enzler, Quinault Chair • Kevin Pine, Grays Harbor County
• Ryan Hendricks, Quinault Indian Nation • Brad.Shea, HDR, Inc.
• Tom Jensen, Harbor Regional Health • Lorna White, 1st Security Bank
• Durk Johnson, Seabrook Hospitality
THURSTON COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners Overview Presentation (Jason Robertson):April 27, 2023
• Commissioner Carolina Mejia • Robin Campbell, Assistant County Manager
• Commissioner Tye Menser • Ramiro Chavez, County Manager
• Commissioner Gary Edwards • Robert Gelder, Assistant County Manager
• Michael Cade,Thurston EDC • Jennica Machado, Ec. Dev. Manager
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District A-2
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Thurston County Economic Development Practitioners Focus Group (Jason Robertson): May 16, 2023
• Michael Cade,Thurston EDC • Mike Reid,City of Olympia
• Jennica Machado,Thurston County • Rick Walk, City of Lacey
• Austin Ramirez, City ofTumwater
Thurston County Economic Development Council Board Briefing(Jason Robertson): May 14, 2023
• Peter Agabi, City ofTumwater • Nancy LaPointe, Navigate Financial
• Reid Bates, Express Employment Pros • Cecilia Loveless, MultiCare Foundation
• Heather Burgess, Law Firm • Michael McGauly,StraderHallett PS
• Jim Cooper, City of Olympia • Malcolm Miller, City of Lacey
• Marc Daily,TRPC • Evan Parker, Kidder Mathews
• Joe DePinto, City of Yelm • Annette Pitts, Experience Olympia/Beyond
• Joe Downing, Port of Olympia • Mark Steepy, KPFF Consulting Engineers
• Gary Edwards, County Commissioner • Dr.Timothy Stokes, South Puget Sound CC
• Brian Fluetsch,Sunset Air • Tony Taylor, Leaders Lead the Podcast
• Wayne Fournier, City of Tenino • Carrie Whisler, OlyFed
• Daryl Fourtner, Heritage Bank • Chris Woods, Boys/Girls Club Thurston Co.
• Jessica Jensen, Cap City Law, PS • Shina Wysocki, Chelsea Farms
• Dan Jones, NorthAmericaTalk
EDC Board CEDS/EDD Briefing (Jason Robertson): May 24, 2023
• Reid Bates, Express Employment Pros • Michael McGauly, StraderHallett PS
• Jim Cooper,City of Olympia • Malcolm Miller, City of Lacey
• Marc Daily,TRPC • Evan Parker, Kidder Mathews
• Joe DePinto, City of Yelm • Annette Pitts, Experience Olympia/Beyond
• Gary Edwards, County Commissioner • Mark Steepy, KPFF Consulting Engineers
• Daryl Fourtner, Heritage Bank • Dr.Timothy Stokes,South Puget Sound CC
• Dan Jones, NorthAmericaTalk • Tony Taylor, Leaders Lead the Podcast
• Nancy LaPointe, Navigate Financial • Carrie Whisler, OlyFed
PACIFIC COUNTY
EDA Visit—May 2, 2023
Meeting 1. City of Long Beach-Long Beach City Hall (City Leaders, Mayor, City Council,City Managers, LBMA
Rep, PCTB rep)30 minutes meeting in chamber and 30 minutes boardwalk visit.
Participants:
• Bayo Adetunji • Mark Newsom
• John Anderson • Jerry Phillips
• Jeanne Brooks • Ariel Smith
• David Glassen • Sue Svendsen
• Laura Ives • Tiffany Turner
• Karla Jensen • Sue Yirku
• Jamie Judkins
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District A-3
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Meeting 2. Pacific County Ports and key Stakeholders-Salt Pub- (Port of Ilwaco, Port of Chinook, Port of
Peninsula, Port of Willapa Harbor) and key Ilwaco City leaders (Mayor, City Council, City Treasurer, IMA rep,
PCTB rep).
Participants:
• Bayo Adetunji • Tracy Loftstrom
• John Anderson • Suzanne Luttrell
• Jenna Austin • Julian Orr
• Holly Beller • Jay Personius
• Jeanne Brooks • Kelly Rupp
• Mike Cassineli • Jim Sayce
• Bill Derion • Butch Smith
• Laura Ives • Katja Spitz
• Jamie Judkins • Sue Yirku
• Matt Lessanau
Meeting 3. Lunch with Raymond and South Bend Key Stakeholders-Willapa Harbor Chamber, South Bend
(Raymond City leaders, South Bend City leaders, PC Commissioners,WH Chamber,Tokeland Chamber)
Participants:
• Bayo Adetunji • Scott McDougal
• Jenn Allison • Paul Plackinger
• John Anderson • Dee Roberts
• Sandy Bell • Kelly Rupp
• Jeanne Brooks • Jim Sayce
• Rebecca Chaffee • Julie Struck
• Jerry Doyle • Jovon Vaughn
• Shawn Humphries • Marc Wilson
• Laura Ives • Sue Yirku
• Jamie Judkins
Tour. Port of Willapa Harbor, Bendicksen Landing/South Bend Boat
Meeting 4. Shoalwater Bay Tribe-Tokeland-Greetings and Blessing;Tsunami Tower; Future Relocation
Community Site Tour
Participants:
• Bayo Adetunji • Laura Ives
• John Anderson • Jamie Judkins
• Jeanne Brooks • Sue Yirku
• Jesse Downs
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District A-4
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific EDC Board Briefing and Discussion (Jason Robertson)—June 14, 2023
Noted priorities:
• Shellfish industry support
• Federal dredging investment
• Help becoming a new energy source R+D center
• Provided expansive project priorities inventory with ratings for community+job creation value
Participants:
• Sandy Bell • Melissa Ramsey
• Jeanne Brooks • Weston Roberts
• Mike Cassinelli • Dee Roberts
• Jerry Doyle • Steve Rogers
• Cheryl Heywood • Kelly Rupp
• Laura Holmes • Jim Sayce
• Karla Jensen • Anne Singer
• Tracy Lofstrom • Steve Sohlstrom
• Andrew Mattingly • Linda Spencer
• Mark Newsom • Tiffany Turner
• Jay Personius • Sue Yirku
• Jerry Phillips
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District A-5
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Appendix B — Regional Plans Summary
Resiliency Focus
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Cascadia Rising:2022 • Exercise focused on identifying response o A consolidated plan does not yet • Unique strength for emergency
preparedness in the event of a significant exist to coordinate the reopening of preparedness and response:strong
Cascadia Zone Subduction Zone(CSZ) regional ports to facilitate the national guard and JBLM/Whidbey
event—most relevant finding for Pac- evacuation of people and movement military presence
Salish: of bulk products in response to a CSZ • Need guidelines and facilities for
• Lack of mitigation funding for surface event establishing adequate sheltering,
roads,airports, rail and marine ports Need stronger coordination with response base camps,wrap around
following emergency area tribal communities care services
• Incomplete evacuation plans (tsunami,
fire,earthquake)
• Need stronger business reentry and
community reunification plans
• Insufficient funding to modernize and
optimize data and phone warning
Related Regional Plans
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
PacMtn Industry Cluster • Updated every five years • Wood products and fishing/shellfish Includes all Pacific-Salish Counties,
Analysis: Updated 2020 . Used to identify in-demand jobs;develop remain among highest LQ industries, but also Lewis County—subtract
industry sector engagement strategies; but continue to shed employment small%of manufacturing and ag,and
flag supply chain gaps;compare wage findings are consistent w Pac-Sal
ranges, et al baseline
• Key Industries: Food;Timber Products; Data helpful for identifying and
Info-Tech; Healthcare; Manufacturing/ supporting emerging sectors(e.g.,
Logistics; Hospitality/Tourism media and brewing-distilling in 2020)
Broadband Action
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Grays Harbor, Mason, Provided in main plan doc • Provided in main plan doc Provided in main plan doc
Pacific,Thurston
(All in 2022-2023)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-1
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Grays • •
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED-CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Grays Harbor Economic • Tourism soared during pandemic, likely to • Av Ann Wage are 73% Nat Av • Major employment industries:
Vitality Index:2022 remain high w return visitors • Just 27%of retail sales occur outside Health,AFS, Retail, Pub Admin,
• Home values and retail sales also up Aberdeen (36%), Unincorporated Manuf.And Ed
• Port handled 2-3 MMT of cargo for about County(24%)or Ocean Shores(13%) • Home sales have grown steadily from
a decade,should see growth w expansion • 44%of adults have HS degree or less 2016
of Terminals 2 and 4
Greater Grays Harbor Key Industries:Wood Products; Food • Current challenges include flooding • 3 Opportunity Zones: Moclips-Ocean.
Website(Facts+Figures) Products; Hospitality+Tourism and homelessness Shores; Hoquiam;Aberdeen
• Projects: North Shore Levee; US 12 Rail • Noted,separately,#of ALICE • Comprehensive business resources
Separation;Oyhut Bay Expansion threshold HHs rose 32%between and assistance program thru GGH
• Featured Properties:Tech Campus at 2019 and 2021—i.e.,nearly 11k HHs • Microenterprise Assistance Fund
Satsop(47,832 SF of office space); do not have enough income to meet (with set aside for childcare facilities)
Hoquiam Marine Industrial Site (93 acres survival budget($22,956 for single
w 1,700 ft river frontage) adult and$68,712 for family of 4)
INFO.SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS - NOTED.CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Grays Harbor • : Goals: Establish development climate that • The Element notes challenges • The county has an 0.09 Advisory'
Comprehensive Plan stimulates economic activity/investment; caused by pandemic;higher than Committee that issues grants,
Economic Development Retain existing businesses and assist in average unemployment; and lagging approved by Commissioners,to
Element:2021 development/expansion;Strengthen economic growth advance element goals
natural resource-based economy; • Grays Harbor is considered a • Extensive list of Economic
Promote increased employment "distressed county"(with a three-. Development Projects with cost
opportunities and incomes for workers; year unemployment rate 20%above estimates and descriptions
Market Grays Harbor as a premier place state average
to visit, live, invest; Invest in maintenance
and expansion of infrastructure that
retains, expands,leads to new economic
growth throughout county
Aberdeen Comprehensive • High level goals include: Healthy • Lack of building maintenance; • Notes significance of natural setting
Plan Economic economy; Diverse talent base;Vibrant population and jobs losses; (tourism and environmental
Development Element: downtown; Healthy businesses;Complete development challenges that-led to stewardship responsibilities); Port of
2022 transportation;Active waterfront; Unique limited new construction,limited Grays Harbor economic power
Aberdeen identity; Distinct employment housing options, declining housing
districts; Economic resilience;and affordability, and a limited economic
Regional coordination base;sea level rise
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-2
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Thurston
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Thurston • Major focus:Career Pathways and Workforce • Notable challenges: periodic reduction in • Action plan needs update
Economic Readiness;Target Industry Growth/ force events at State and JBLM; lack of
Alliance Plan: Innovation;Small Business and funding for last-mile infrastructure(and
2017 Entrepreneurial Resources; Infrastructure, lack of EDD)
Policy/Funding Coordination; Brand
Development, Partnerships and
Communication
• 35 Initiatives:transp.system/transit; reclaim
H2O; broadband;infra.funding;ctr for
biz/innovation; multi-cultural biz
development; IPZ; ag+food man.strategy;
target industry recruitment; business
retention fund
• Adopted indicators instructive for Pacific-
Salish monitoring plan .
Thurston Strong • Reset plan to build inclusive, resilient, • Identifies major economic challenges • Notes other community priorities to be
COVID Recovery expanding economic landscape resulting from pandemic: Reduced access implemented by others—e.g.,affordable
and Reset Plan: • 22 actions:childcare support, BIPOC business to critical info; lack of childcare;revenue housing along transit lines, identifying
2021 council;community cultural center; biz collapse for select sectors; shovel-ready infrastructure projects,
training programs;place-based ec dev disproportionate impacts for BIPOC and creating a food hub in south county
engagement; CDFI lender; Education to low-income pops; inability of some
Financial Stability TF;SPSCC scholarships;Job businesses to adapt(i.e., online presence,
Corps program; ag support; Economic bookkeeping for PPP loans,etc.)
Development District; biz bridge financing;
workforce housing,et al
Thurston County • Emphasizes collaboration with partners • Concern with protection of remaining ag • 2017 update presents a favorable,
Economic including EDC, Chamber, Port lands after rapid deterioration supportive view of economic
Development • Policy 1.4 documents support for creating development(so long as it is sustainable)
Element:2019 federal EDD
Olympia • Vision—heart of the region • None noted • Increasing housing density adding more
Downtown • Focus Goals:Advocacy;Safety; Image making permanent market
Alliance (ODA) (spaces and places);economic development;
Strategic Plan: funding
2022
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-3
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Thurston
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
ODA Annual • New maintenance worker keep streets and • Homelessness and mental health • ODA works w Valeo to help previously
Report:2023 storefronts clean • Sea level rise,flooding unhoused individuals secure
• Microgrant available to spruce up facades • Capitol employees working from home employment
• Considering forming Improvement District to
fund revitalization
Lacey • Lacey has grown 15%since 2015,twice the • Lack of workforce, large sites for job • Future opportunity to repurpose
Community rate of Thurston/WA;80%coming from out centers, housing and identity Carpenter Way gravel pit .
Market Study: of state • Rick of flooding from Nisqually • Redevelop South Sound Center(Sears)
2022 • Lacey's job base grew 19%,far above peer and Martin Village(Burlington)
and state averages;warehouse jobs led • Potential to host EV battery R+D
growth,then healthcare and manufacturing
• Significant demand for warehouse and
business office park space
Lacey Economic • Strengths are collaboration,demographics • Insufficient funding for dedicated biz • The other two documents are the
Development and workforce retention and recruitment position Economic Development Strategy, and
Element: 2016 • JBLM impact highly significant • Lack of"economic gardening"tools Economic Development Program (Work
• HUB Zone and CB+I notable assets • Without offset, high water connect and Plan).While there is county-wide
• As is location between PDX/SEA traffic fees impede development collaboration,there is no CEDS. CEDS
• Diverse zoning for all types of biz • No strong fin tools like TIF required by EDA for grants, revolving
• Opportunity to develop near Cabela's • Threat of earthquakes/volcano loan. Lacey and Thurston are not
• Luxury auto sales opportunity • Threat of JBLM downsizing considered distressed, and not eligible
• Potential to redevelop SS Center • Endangered species limitations for EDA funding. CEDS
• Potential to redevelop Fred Meyer • Occupation forecast not HW jobs would formalize,on a county/regional
• (Market study updated post 2015)
level,which partners provide services,• Open to incentives for strong ROI protocols for working together,andwhere to effectively focus resources.
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-4
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Thurston
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Olympia Strong: Needs • Renters and homeowners living in Key Initiatives
2023 • Close the Equity Gap separate worlds—e.g., over 90%of • Grow the Olympia Career Hub to
• Boost Affordable Housing&Home Ownership renters had difficulty affording food last prepare people for local in-demand
• Elevate More People Out of Poverty year;under 10%of homeowners occupations(clean energy, construction,
• Champion Youth etc.)
• Cultivate Career Pathways • Journey2Jobs skill-building and
• Support Entrepreneurship and Small employment w wrap-around services
Business, Large Employers&Industry Sectors • Support programs that introduce youth
• Foster Community Vitality to a variety of career options and
employers before graduation
• Convert Plum Street Village into
transitional housing for formally
houseless and incarcerated individuals in
job training and education programs
• Expand access to capital for aspiring
entrepreneurs from underbanked and
underrepresented populations
• Stand up navigator pilot project in target
zone neighborhoods to connect
residents with business and career
training resources
• Develop a climate adaptation and
preparedness plan
• Work with regional economic partners
to better prepare for future economic
disruptions
Tumwater Goals Challenges • This is for lowland section of brewery
Brewery District • Sense of place • Historic structures may require adjacent to Tumwater Falls Park, not
Plan Update: • Pedestrian access demolition/rebuild production facilities in valley
2023 • Gathering places • Access road is limited • EDA could be instrumental for cleaning,
• Better transportation options • Utilities undersized and redeveloping historic brewery for
• Employment/economic opportunity • No parking area major emp center
• Possible event/hotel space
• New brewing/distilling operations
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-5
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Reimagining The Willapa • Focused on sustainability in the Willapa Bay Decline in wood products industry; • Detailed project descriptions
Report:2022 region through innovation, resiliency and challenges to fishing and shellfish included in document"Livable
recreation farming;climate change—esp.for Cities Project Descriptions"
• Projects:Sustainable Shellfish Innovation; SB Indian Reservation and Tokeland
Energy Innovation District;Shoalwater Bay
and Tokeland Infrastructure Resilience;
Business-Ready Downtowns; New Housing;
Trail-Ready Willapa;Willapa Hospitality
Institute and Culinary Destination; Restore
Critical Boat Maintenance Infrastructure;
value-added wood products manufacturing at
Port of Willapa Harbor;Street and Sidewalk
Preservation-Construction Grants; EV
Charging Station Grants; Downtown and Small
Business Grants;Willapa Wheelstop;
Complete Streets;South Bend Boardwalk;
Willapa Hills Swing Bridge;Sound Bend Bridge
ADA Access;Tokeland Walk/Bike
Infrastructure;South Bend Bendiksen Landing
Restoration; Hospitality Education Center; Bay
Center Shellfish Education
Recreation Development . Focus on dispersed recreational tourism • Dramatic fluctuation (and more • Divide PC into 6 sub-regions:
Plan: 2018 • Projects: Bay Center rec facilities and trails; recently) decrease in razor clam Tokeland; Long Beach Peninsula,-
water trails; docks; marketing;viewing days open has hurt visitation Naselle Valley; Raymond/S Bend;
platforms;Countywide trail system;signage; • Lack of connectivity limits visitor Willapa Valley; Bay Center
Haunted history project;focus on biking, stay length and spending
birdwatching, eco-adventurers
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-6
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Pacific County Overall . Ag and Forest:adapt to tech changes in • Impacts of people moving to online • Serves as a substitute for Economic
Economic Development resource production and manufacturing shopping(away from local Element in County Comp Plan
Plan:2019 • Transportation: improve channel and harbor economy) • Need to follow up on status of
access;over the dock freight transfer • Lack of broadband coverage conceptual"online marketplace"
capacity; EV stations o Business seasonality • Excellent overview of Branding
• Industrial Lands: Consider mixed use housing • Low to no pop growth in some baseline:Columbia, Cranberry,
on certain industrial lands areas Rainkist,Willapa, Long Beach, etc.
• Commercial Lands: Mixed use housing for • Lack of workforce housing • Transportation priorities: Bridges
workers • Aging pop on Willapa Hills Trail,SR6; erosion;
• Housing: Diversify housing types; increase • Lack of specialty medical services Bike-ped separation;trestles;
density;workforce housing for resource o Majority living in unincorporated Connecting Discovery Bay rail to
workers area (68%)puts strain on County Refuge;Stream culverts;
• Maritime:Spin-off industries;energy budget Replacement of bridges;
production or support; channel nav . Isolation from 1-5 Corridor and Maintenance of shoulders (SR103)
• Forest Industrial:Value-added sector larger urban centers o Safety is a recurring theme across
development • Overabundance of vacant and sub-region,as is youth
• Water Resources:Drinking water quality; vacation homes • Noted funding sources: LTA, .09
water resource protections . Low labor force participation rate Sales Tax; CERB; PWTF; USDA; DNR
• Rec:build recreation network with emphasis . Transient segment of workforce Rural Communities; FLAP;WWRP;
on public lands; enhance connectivity; . Vulnerability of resource industries RCO;Other Funds:County,Special
modernize amenities to drastic climate change Purpose Districts, Nonprofits, Ports
• Education: More afterschool activities; more . Loss of local businesses; rise of
broadband REITs
• Communications:sufficient broadband to . Lack of cohesive brand
support growth of in-home internet based a Shortage of industrial lands
businesses . Incomplete info on home-based biz
• Brand:Grow county and sub-region brands . Sales tax depletion,threat from OR
with local products border and internet
• Resource Lands:protect from erosion a Underbuilt downtown amenities
• Other Goals: Maintain and protect high LQ, . Lack of social media/internet skills
but declining workforce base:wood,ocean, among business operators
rivers;Convert jobs from PT to FT; housing • Gaps in poverty reduction
trusts education and resources
• Rising costs overwhelming financial
capacity of fixed income residents
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-7
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS. NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Pacific County OEDP Annex: • Current inventory of ec dev projects(those • NA • Need to see if cost estimates
2022 above+others)—major focus on marina and available
Boatworks;water systems;cold storage;
industrial yard enhancements
Pacific County Bike and Ped • Adjacent doc to Recreation Development Plan • Cost estimates not provided • Excellent overview of segment
Route Plan:2018 • Proposal to connect the dots(link bike trails) deficiencies and needs
between Discovery Trail and Willapa Hills Trail
• And regionally,to Cape Shoalwater Trail into
Aberdeen/101 and SR 105
• Identifies 13 trail segments;almost all are
proposed v existing
Population At Risk—Pacific • Actual data year: 2019 • Clearest depiction yet of"missing • NA
County: 2022 • Good news:Only 28%of HHs pay more than middle"age cohort(under 5 and
30%of income for rent v 46%for US over 65 rising at twice the US rate)
• Shows 16%of Pacific County
residents in"poverty"and 7%in
"deep poverty"—Over 19%of HHs
receive food stamps v 12%for US
• Good graphic showing 35%of
Pacific labor force"did not work"v
23%for US;increase of 6%over
past decade
• 24.7%of Pacific population self-
reports a disability v 12.6%of US
Joint Pacific County Housing • Interest in Community Land Trust w • Notable that,of 16,000 homes, • Companion"Dimensions"doc also
Authority Strategic Plan: permanent affordable housing only 9,000 are occupied v seasonal identifies need for tiny home
2018 • Acquire more units countywide • JPCH operates 4 properties with 64 village,overnight shelters,re-
• Promote ADUs units for all income levels purposed commercial lodging as
• Focus on affordable workforce housing supply • Estimate 110-130 homeless potential solutions for closing stock
families gap
Benchmark Demographics: • NA,outdated (2019 data)and replaced with • NA • NA
2022 JobsEQ data
Pacific County EDC Annual • Launched Long Beach Merchants Services • Major focus on administering • Incredible list of EDC members
Report:2021 Center; DART Trail Mapping COVID response aid
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-8
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Pacific
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Pacific County Property • Livable Communities Year—UW student eval Under-regulated vacation homes • Products include database with
Inventory: 2022 (UW) of underutilized structures for potential are driving affordable market out property specifics and GIS
housing use of reach storyboard to visualize options
• Locations that have access to sewer,water,
and broadband, as well as have an existing
building foundation
• Each municipality has 25-50"good fit"
properties
Regional Transportation Opportunities Challenges • 4 projects were identified as top
Plan Update—Discussion • Major Project Development with WSDOT • Underfunded for known needs priorities,with 2 in South County
Doc(2023) • Passenger rail expansion • Challenges with Road Usage Charge and 2 in North County
• Emerging Technology(EVs, Hydrogen Fuel Cell • Tourism-related traffic overtaxing
Vehicles, Connected and Autonomous local roads
Vehicles) • Lack of ADA improvements
EDA Project Funding • 34 top priorities,countywide • NA • Each project informally graded for
Priorities Inventory:2023 • Arranged by category(e.g., Ports,shoreline, relative job-creation and
recreational,et al) community value
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-9
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Mason County Economic • Notes high proportion of resident who live in • Lack of housing stock • Population growth had been declining
Development Element:2017 Mason but community out of County for work diversity could inhibit large since 2006(but appears to have shot
• Emphasis on place making and building lifestyle employers from locating in up in 2022 due to pandemic)
choice community brand, Mason
• Major focus areas: Infrastructure and Capital • Mason has a relatively low
Improvements; Permitting and Regulation; jobs to housing ratio(i.e., .4
Education,Training and Business Development; vs .9 in Thurston)
Community Development and Quality of Life; • 21%of vacant housing is
Key Industries due to seasonal use
• Identified capital investments:expanded • Government accounts for
internet and cell phone coverage; utility nearly half of total covered
extension;shovel-ready sites;freight mobility payroll employment
on Hwy 3;expansion of Olympic College; •
facilities to support outdoor recreation industry;
cross laminated timber industry growth;
shellfish habitat protection; USDA slaughter
facility,cold storage, processing facilities,
commercial kitchen; infrastructure to reduce
nonpoint pollution in shellfish areas;visitor
signage;cycle route enhancements
City of Shelton Economic • 5-year plan (end in 2023) Rural location; lack of • Noted target industries:timber milling;
Development Strategic Plan: • Emphasis on business retention and expansion; dedicated resources for specialized ag; hospitality and tourism;
2018 workforce partnerships; external marketing economic development retail; light industrial
(logo and tagline,online presence);internal activities
marketing(conveying value of economic
development); place and talent(real estate
development, housing options,downtown,
tourism,infrastructure,transportation);and
recruitment(focus on inventory provided)
Mason PUD 3 Broadband • Cool effort to create"Fiberhoods"through • Fiberhoods definitely help, • Notable that homeowners have
Fiber News:2022-2023 network line extensions into qualifying but won't alone solve the multiple providers to choose from
neighborhoods where 75%of area.homes rural, low-density service (which helps keep costs reasonable)
register interest. Cost is share for establishing challenge • Qualifying households can receive a
home connection (for homeowner,$3,600 up reduction in service costs
front, or$25 per mo. up to 12 yrs).
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-10
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
INFO SOURCE MAJOR GOALS/FINDINGS NOTED CHALLENGES OTHER NOTES
Target Industries Study— • Mason transitioning from anchor natural Closure of the Simpson Mill Document identifies many specific
Sparking Solutions(Draft): resource economy to diverse industry base: was a major hit to the actions within goal areas—will need to
2017 tourism; healthcare;government; retail; economy and workers w/o reconfirm top priorities given origin
specialty manufacturing and prof services readily available and (2015-2017)and economic impact
• Notes growth in Construction and Ag equivalent alternative emp legacy of the pandemic
• Notes several economic anchors:two public opportunities
utility districts;several ports;Transit Authority;
Mason General Hospital; Belfair Urgent Care;
Olympic College;Squaxin Tribe and Little Creek
Casino/Island Enterprises;Corrections Center;
School District;Taylor Shellfish
• "Getting to Yes"Workshop and 6 follow up
forums focused on linking community
/economic development priorities:tourism;
value-added ag; adv manufacturing; career and
tech education;info and comms tech;forest
products; healthcare
• Resulting Goals:Annual Community and
Economic Development Summit; Industry
Roundtable Meetings; Business Retention and
Expansion Program; Linking Workforce
Development to Industry Clusters; New
Business Resource Center and
Entrepreneurship;Shellfish Advocacy
Mason County Business • SWOT style report • Weaknesses:commuter • Notes the economic impact of
Demographics Phase III • Strengths: retail and health sector growth; outmigration; marijuana production, processing and
Report: 2017 location relative to Oly,Tacoma and Seattle manufacturing contraction; sales (good for state and local sales
• Key recommendations:wrap-around business wage levels;status as rural tax, but not eligible for federal
services for all stages; inventory of vacant are under GMA rules investment)
commercial and shovel-ready industrial sites; (limited large employer Interesting profile of Thermedia which
streamlined permitting process opportunities) chose Port of Shelton for business
conditions and superior fiber
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District B-11
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
Appendix C — Pacific-Salish EDD Project Inventory by County
Updated October 1, 2023
Individual Economic Development Councils will maintain their respective project inventories, with additional details regarding anticipated cost,
partnerships and timelines. New projects will be added to the Top Priorities Action section and this inventory list during CEDS updates.
Grays Harbor County Project Inventory
• Aberdeen-Hoquiam Flood Protection Project • Port of Grays Harbor Terminal 4 improvements
• Buildable lands study • Public infrastructure enhancement for development-ready sites at Satsop
• Built Environment Infrastructure for Healthy Communities a Rural broadband in Chehalis River Valley
• Chehalis River Bridge • Satsop power upgrade
• Commercial and industrial development outside of flood zone • Simpson Ave. Bridge
• Development of housing options in all categories • Small Business Resource Network and Technical Assistance Funding
• Development of McCleary Industrial site 0 Support for publicly and privately owned tourism assets
• Expansion of resources for childcare providers 0 Tsunami mitigation resources
• Grays Harbor College housing • Water conveyance and storage infrastructure
• Health care facility and service expansion to coastal communities • Westport Marina Modernization
• Highway 12 Rail grade Separation Project • Workforce development training for legacy industries
• Hoquiam 15 MW substation ($2M) • Workforce training for skilled labor and trades
• Port of Grays Harbor Terminal 3 improvements
Mason County Project Inventory
• 7th Street Reconstruction 0 Duckabush Bridge Replacement
• Agate Beach Mainline Replacement Project • Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
• Alderbrook Lower Aquifer Testing • Electrical System Intertie PUD1-PUD3
• Allyn Transit Center Planning project • Evergreen Town Square
• Aviation Business Park • Express Feeder(via Simmons Rd)to Squaxin Island Tribe
• Backup Emergency Generators • Harstine Dedicated Feeder
• Belfair Sewer, North Extension/Belfair Freight Corridor/PSIC • Harstine Pointe Rural Broadband Fiberhood
• Belfair Substation Transformer Upgrade • Hoodsport Transit Center Planning
• Belfair WRF Critical Equipment Replacement Project • Hwy 108 Fish Culvert Projects
• Belfair WRF Resiliency Project • Johns Prairie Facility Upgrade/Construction
• Canal View Water Systems Rehabilitation • Jorstad Substation
• Coloquallum Communities Rural Broadband Fiber Project • Lake Arrowhead Main Line Replacement
• Construct Maintenance Wash Facility • LED Streetlight Upgrades
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District C-1
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
• Manzanita Substation • Submarine Distribution Cable Replacement
• Mason Plan Update • Substation: Belfair
• Membrane Treatment Plant Phase 1 Expansion Design and Construction • Substation: Dayton Shelton
• New Well-Pressure Zone 2 • Substation: Potlatch
• New Well Belfair UGA and commercial core 0 Switching Yard/Transmission Lines/Substation: Belfair (3phases)
• North Bay Case Inlet WRF GSP/FP Update • Switching Yard/Transmission Lines/Substation: Dayton Shelton (3phases)
• North Diversion Sewer Lift Station and Force Main • Tenant Consolidation &Expansion
• Port Security • Trails Road Alternative-Razor Road Extension
• Rasor&Alderwood Rd Rural Broadband Fiberhood • Union Water System: Project A: Manzanita Water Reservoirs
• Replacement Well • Union Water System: Project B:Vuecrest&Union Ridge Water Main
• Ripplewood Main Line Replacement • Union Water System: Project D: Manzanita Reservoir Mainline
• Rural Broadband-Fiberhoods 0 Union Regional Water System: Project F Alderbrook Mainline Replace
• Sargent Oyster House • Water Reclamation Plant Headworks Capacity Upgrades
• Shadowood Reservoir& Booster Station • Water Reclamation Plant Membrane Filter Replacements
• SR3 Freight Corridor-Romance Hill Connector • Wildfire Prevention Equipment-Multi Year Project
Pacific County Project Inventory
• Affordable Housing Development(County-wide) • Ilwaco Boatyard Expansion (in-water pier/lift to enable larger boats
• American Legion Post 150 Veteran Resource& Housing Center(WCDA) • Ilwaco Discovery Trail Connection Project(City of Ilwaco/Port of Ilwaco)
• Beach to Bay Trail (Port of Peninsula) • Industrial Log Yard/Saw Mill Storm Water Improvements(Pacific County)
• Bendicksen Landing revitalization (South Bend) • Invasive species mitigation (County-wide)
• Boardwalk Reconstruction(City of Long Beach) a Klean Building re-development into workforce housing(Long Beach)
• Boat Hoist Dock Construction Phase I (Port of Chinook) • Long Beach Peninsula Event Center(Port of Peninsula)
• Broadband redundancy+Wi-Fi (County-wide) a Marina Based Research Facility and Seed Tank Co-Op (Port of Peninsula)
• Bulkhead Replacement Project(Port of Ilwaco) • Marina Reconstruction Project(Port of Chinook)
• Clam Shell Rail Car Rescue(Port of Peninsula) • Marina Reconstruction Project(Port of Peninsula)
• Cold Storage Project(Port of Ilwaco) • Marine Fueling Facility Improvements(Port of Chinook)
• Community Multipurpose Event Site(Port of Ilwaco) • Multi-year dredging(County-wide)
• County-wide septage disposal (County-wide) 0 Strategic Inventory Plan for Nature Based Tourism (Long Beach)
• Discovery Trail Mid-Peninsula Link(Port of Peninsula) • Recreational Boating Facility Redevelopment(Port of Chinook)
• Downtown revitalization (Raymond/South Bend, Ilwaco) 0 Re-purpose Naselle Youth Camp(Naselle)
• Dylan Jude Harrell Community Center(Ilwaco) 0 Robert Bush Park Overlay and Drainage(City of South Bend)
• EDC Staffing(Pacific County EDC) • Seaview Connector Trail (City of Ilwaco)
• Erosion Protections for North Willapa Shoreline • Septage Management Feasibility Study(Pacific County/City of Ilwaco)
• EV Charging-EV charging stations (County-wide) • Shoalwater and Tokeland area infrastructure resilience-Shoreline
• Expansion of Raymond wastewater treatment facility(Raymond) 0Shoalwater Bay Upland Project(Tokeland)
• Hospital Expansion—Willapa Harbor and Ocean Beach (Raymond, Ilwaco) • South Bend Mill Revitalization (brownfield, multiuse development)
• South Bend-Raymond Waterline Extension(City of South Bend)
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District C-2
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)
• SR101 Charging Stations(EDC/PCOG) • Water System Infrastructure Improvements(City of Raymond)
• Tokeland Marina Fishers RV Park&Campground (Port of Willapa Harbor) a Water System Plan Update(City of Ilwaco)
• Tri-district Harbor Trade and Technology Center(County-wide) • Water Treatment Plant Emergency Generator(City of South Bend)
• Tsunami towers (Long Beach Peninsula) • Willapa Bay Boatyard for haul out and large scale rework (Raymond)
• Washington Coast Business Accelerator(South Bend) 0 Willapa pedestrian/bicycle ferry(County-wide)
• Water Booster Station Improvements(City of Ilwaco) • WN88 Airport Improvement and Industrial Park Project(Port of Peninsula)
• Water installation/hookup for Chinook area (Chinook) • WTP SCADA Upgrade(City of Ilwaco)
Thurston County Project Inventory
• Lacey Food Truck Plaza amenities • Thurston County EV charging stations
• Lacey Hawks Prairie destination development • Thurston County Fairground redevelopment
• Lacey indoor sports facility • Thurston County Gates-Belmore Trail expansion
• Lacey MakerSpace expansion and training center • Thurston County Grand Mound infrastructure
• Lacey Phase II RAC expansion • Thurston County Grand Mound master plan
• Lacey Phase III RAC expansion • Thurston County land use and building permit technology upgrades
• Olympia coastal tourism amenities Thurston County marina modernization
• Olympia Highway 101 interchange at mall • Thurston County market analysis for new incubator programs
• Olympia sea wall,boardwalk,jetty, pier,wharf, dock, landing protections a Thurston County Martin Way Corridor
• Port of Olympia Foreign Trade Zone expansion • Thurston County meeting space
• Thurston County.affordable housing development a Thurston County Rochester Main Street
• Thurston County broadband infrastructure and digital equity a Thurston EDC revolving loan fund
• Thurston County childcare • Thurston EDC Scale Up Training Program
• Tumwater Pocket Gopher land mitigation purchase
Pacific-Salish Economic Development District C-2
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)