Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESImpactsIMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVESWatershedUnder all alternatives, development and redevelopment would occur within portions of the Gorst CreekWatershed. Based on the online search of databases, the only contaminated sites of concern in the watershed thatare outside the UGA are located in the southern half of the watershed, near the Gorst and SKIA UGAs. These threesites are currently releasing hazardous materials to the environment, as described under the Affected Environmentsection, although it is assumed that some level of cleanup of these sites would occur in the future under all of thealternatives. Redevelopment of these sites would likely include construction activities that could disturbcontaminated areas, exposing workers, soil, groundwater, and/or surface water to hazardous materials.Additionally, construction activities elsewhere in the watershed could expose new contamination not previouslydocumented, which would provide opportunities for remediation. It is expected that most likely areas toencounter contamination would be at industrial sites. Hazardous materials are not expected to be a concern inundeveloped and rural portions of the watershed, where most development would be residential.Demolition of existing structures under any of the alternatives could be associated with risks to workers fromexposure to lead-based paint and/or ACMs. However, implementation of proper techniques for removing thesehazardous materials should minimize the risks. As all new structures would be constructed without the use ofthese materials, there would be a benefit to the public over the long term as buildings that contain these materialsare taken down.A variety of hazardous materials would be used and stored at construction sites, such as fuel, cleaning solvents,and paint. Improper storage or handling of these materials could result in a release of these chemicals to the soil,groundwater, or surface water. However with proper spill plans in place and followed, these risks should beminimized.Gorst UGAUnder all alternatives, redevelopment of the Gorst UGA would be allowed, based on the zoned land uses. Asdiscussed in the Affected Environment section, one Reasonably Predictable and seven Substantially ContaminatedSites have been identified within the Gorst UGA. Many of these sites are currently undergoing cleanup or remedialactions, and it is likely that cleanup actions would continue into the future under all of the alternatives. However,since many sites in the UGA are currently documented as storing hazardous substances or waste, it is likely thatadditional contaminated sites will be discovered in the future.As discussed for the watershed, there would be risks associated with exposures or releases of hazardous materialsduring redevelopment activities, including disturbance of contaminated soil, demolition of buildings with leadbasedpaint or ACMs, and use/storage of hazardous materials at construction sites. Given the number ofcontaminated sites in the UGA and the amount of likely redevelopment in the future under all of the alternatives,the greatest amount of risk associated with hazardous materials would be in the UGA.Alternative 1Under this alternative, current land use designations would remain. Non-residential land uses (high intensitycommercial, mineral resource, and industrial) would make up 87 percent of the land area in the UGA. These landuses are typically associated with a higher risk of contamination than residential uses. Additionally, many of theexisting industrial facilities would likely remain operational, or would eventually be replaced by other industrialfacilities. The potential for contamination of soil and water from land uses would likely be greatest under this landuse breakdown, as compared to the action alternatives. Redevelopment of industrial or commercial properties toresidential uses would also have an associated risk of human exposure to contaminants, particularly for siteswhere soil and groundwater contamination is not previously known.Draft | June 2013 3-94
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESThe Watershed Characterization & Framework Plan and Gorst Subarea Plan would not be implemented under thisalternative. Stormwater improvements and new LID regulations identified under the plan would not beimplemented as part of the action. Issues with stormwater, which are discussed in Sections 3.2 Water Resourcesand 3.13.3 Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater, include flooding onto developed sites which can cause themovement of hazardous materials into surface waters and downstream areas. Of particular concern is theBremerton Auto Wrecking Landfill, at which there is documentation of movement of contaminated, eroded wastedownstream in the stream sediments as a result of flooding. While it is possible that this problem will be addressedin current remedial actions, there is no set timeline for resolution of these issues, and they would be expected tocontinue until such a resolution has occurred. Under this alternative there would be no WatershedCharacterization & Framework Plan and Gorst Subarea Plan in place for reducing flooding and directing andinfiltrating stormwater. Therefore, it is likely that flooding would continue to be a problem throughout thewatershed and hazardous materials would continue to be transported downstream in surface water under thisalternative.Alternative 2Under this alternative, the land use breakdown within the UGA would not include an industrial component.Approximately 46 percent of the UGA would be Commercial Corridor, and the remainder would be Low andMedium Density Residential and Open Space/Recreation. Therefore, land uses typically associated with a high riskof contamination would be much less prevalent than under Alternative 1. Additionally, the Industrial land usezoning would no longer be present. However, existing industrial facilities may continue to operate for many yearsbefore they are redeveloped into a different use. Additionally, hazardous material contamination associated withthese sites would continue to be present, subject to ongoing and future cleanup/remediation activities. Futuredevelopment in the UGA, however, would likely consist of land uses that are less likely to store hazardoussubstances or waste, and therefore less likely to cause future environmental contamination or human exposure tothese hazardous materials. The potential for contamination of soil and water from future land uses would be lowerunder Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1.The Bremerton Auto Wrecking Landfill would continue to be a site of concern under this alternative, as thecontaminated waste would continue to be present and subject to movement offsite and into surface water duringflooding events, until such time as the site is remediated. However, the Watershed Characterization & FrameworkPlan and Gorst Subarea Plan would be implemented under this alternative, which would help reduce flooding andimprove stormwater infiltration throughout the watershed and particularly the UGA, and would help preventfuture exacerbation of these issues by guiding future development throughout the watershed. Plannedimprovements to stormwater facilities, such as modifying culverts or providing means of diverting stormwaterflows, would be likely to lessen flooding onto developed sites and associated movement of contaminants insurface water. Since new developments would be required to infiltrate stormwater, it is likely that over timeflooding would be reduced, which would also lessen these impacts.Alternative 3Under Alternative 3, the land use breakdown would not include industrial components. Approximately 26 percentof the UGA would be zoned as Open Space/Recreation, Low Intensity Waterfront, or residential. Future land usesin these areas would be expected to have a fairly low associated risk of contamination with hazardous materials.The remainder of the UGA would be zoned as Gorst Mixed Use or Neighborhood Mixed Use. Commercialdevelopment would be more diffuse throughout the UGA than under the other alternatives. Similar to Alternative2, the Industrial land use zoning would no longer be present, although existing industrial facilities may continue tooperate for many years before they are redeveloped. Hazardous material contamination and risk forcontamination associated with these sites would continue to be present, subject to remediation/cleanup activities.Overall, the potential for contamination of soil and water from future land uses would likely be lowest under thisalternative.Draft | June 2013 3-95
Page 1 and 2:
KITSAP COUNTYCITY OF BREMERTONHED P
Page 3 and 4:
VOLUME 2: GORST PLANNED ACTIONENVIR
Page 7 and 8:
FACT SHEETProject TitleGorst Creek
Page 9 and 10:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | FACT SHE
Page 11 and 12:
TABLE OF CONTENTSFact Sheet .......
Page 13 and 14:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | TABLE OF
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
1.0 SUMMARY1.1 Purpose of Proposed
Page 25 and 26:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARY
Page 27 and 28:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYP
Page 29 and 30:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYs
Page 31 and 32:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYi
Page 33 and 34:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYa
Page 35 and 36:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYT
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYA
Page 51 and 52:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYs
Page 53 and 54:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYA
Page 55 and 56:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYd
Page 57 and 58:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYI
Page 59 and 60:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYo
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYi
Page 65 and 66:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYI
Page 67 and 68:
2.0 ALTERNATIVES2.1 IntroductionThe
Page 69 and 70:
FIGURE 2-1 GORST CREEK WATERSHED AE
Page 71 and 72:
FIGURE 2-2 GORST URBAN GROWTH AREAW
Page 73 and 74:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | ALTERNAT
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
FIGURE 2-3 GORST WATERSHED PLANNING
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
FIGURE 2-4 GORST UGA LAND USE: ALTE
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
FIGURE 2-10 GORST WATERSHED ASSESSM
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
FIGURE 2-11 GORST CREEK WATERSHED:
Page 101 and 102:
FIGURE 2-12 GORST WATERSHED PLANNIN
Page 103 and 104:
FIGURE 2-13 PROPOSED FISH PASSAGE B
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED
Page 111 and 112:
Lake UnionReservoirQgdQaQgoQgoBreme
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
City UtilityLandsBremerton West UGA
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
GorstCreek.Jarstad CreekBremerton W
Page 127 and 128:
FIGURE 3.2-3 GORST: IDENTIFIED EXIS
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152: GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED
Page 163 and 164: FIGURE 3.4-1 GORST CREEK WATERSHED:
Page 195 and 196: Bremerton West UGAW BELFAIR VALLEY
Page 201: GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED
Page 207 and 208: FIGURE 3.7-1 GORST WATERSHED PLANNI
Page 209 and 210: FIGURE 3.7-2 GORST CREEK WATERSHED:
Page 245 and 246: Lake UnionReservoirBremertonHeinsCr
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Lake UnionReservoirBremertonHeinsCr
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
FIGURE 3.12-1 GORST WATERSHED PLANN
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
FIGURE 3.12-2 GORST CREEK WATERSHED
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Bremerton West UGAGorst UGAPump Sta
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
FIGURE 3.14-1 GORST: COMPARISON OF
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
4.0 REFERENCES4.1 Personal Communic
Page 373 and 374:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | REFERENC
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
5.0 DISTRIBUTION LISTThe following
Page 381 and 382:
GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | APPENDIC
Page 383 and 384:
GORST CREEK WATERSHED PLAN, GORST S
Page 385 and 386:
Date Name/Agency Summarysharedpatht
Page 387 and 388:
Exhibit 2. SWOT AnalysisStrengths -
Page 389 and 390:
IhaverentalpropertiesthatarezonedHT
Page 391 and 392:
ATTACHMENTSA. Scoping Advertisement
Page 396:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Page 402:
What is an Environmental Impact Sta
Page 406:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
ORDINANCE NO.________AN ORDINANCE O
Page 419 and 420:
PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCEfor the pla
Page 421 and 422:
PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE(4) Element
Page 423 and 424:
PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCESection 5.
Page 425 and 426:
PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCEEXHIBIT BPL
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Gorst Planned Action EIS | Appendic
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
show all

Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?