Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

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