12.07.2015 Views

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESTable 3.3-5<strong>Gorst</strong> UGA Contribution to Forecast 2035 Puget Sound Regional VMTAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3<strong>Gorst</strong> study area daily VMT1 29,067 49,350 45,707Kitsap County 2035 daily VMT2 6,602,656 6,615,322 6,604,458Contribution to Kitsap County 2035 VMT 0.4 percent 0.7 percent 0.7 percentNote:1 Daily VMT is calculated based on default values from King County GHG spreadsheet, scaled down to account for localdevelopment goals and policies: 64.5 VMT per dwelling unit for single-family housing; 44.8 VMT per dwelling unit formultifamily housing; 44.28 VMT per 1,000 square foot for commercial space; and 19.37 VMT per 1,000 square foot forindustrial space.2 Kitsap County VMT totals for 2035 (Kitsap County 2013b).Calculated GHG EmissionsFor the purposes of this analysis, the GHG emissions are expressed in terms of their increase between currentconditions and future proposed land use conditions in the <strong>Gorst</strong> study area. The emissions estimate for future landuse conditions accounts for GHG emissions reductions expected as a result of local development policies and goals.Table 3.3-2 Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for GHG Emission Calculations - <strong>Gorst</strong> UGA lists theprojected <strong>Gorst</strong> UGA land uses that were used for calculating GHG emissions for each alternative. The values listedunder “existing” represent current land use. The values listed for each alternative represent the net increasecompared to existing conditions.As listed in Table 3.3-6 Comparison of Annual GHG – <strong>Gorst</strong> UGA, Alternative 1 would increase GHG emissions in the<strong>Gorst</strong> UGA.GHG Emission EstimatesTable 3.3-6Comparison of Annual GHG Emissions – <strong>Gorst</strong> UGAAverage Annual GHG Emissions During 60-Year Project Lifetime(metric tons CO2-equivalent per year)Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Existing Emissions 6,374 6,374 6,374GHG Increases Compared to Existing ConditionsEmission Increase Within <strong>Gorst</strong> UGA (AlternativeMinus Existing)GHG Increases Compared to Alternative 1 (Future No <strong>Action</strong>)Emission Increase Within <strong>Gorst</strong> UGA (<strong>Action</strong>Alternative Minus Alternative 1)“Soil Carbon” GHG Emissions From Land Disturbance and Removal of BiomassSoil Carbon GHG Emissions Based on Removal ofExisting Vegetation7,474 14,371 12,922N/A 6,897 5,448120 237 237Total gross GHG emissions for Washington State were estimated to exceed 101,000,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent in 2008 (Ecology 2010b). In comparison to state-wide annual GHG emissions, the relatively smallincrease in GHG emissions within the <strong>Gorst</strong> UGA associated with Alternative 1 is not considered to be significant.Alternative 2The direct and indirect impacts caused by construction emissions, localized stationary source emissions, localizedCO hot-spots, and regional tailpipe emissions would be the same as described under <strong>Impact</strong>s Common to AllAlternatives.<strong>Draft</strong> | June 2013 3-38

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!