Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYin existing or future rights of way or on lands for public purposes. While the total acreage of soil lost is likely to beless than the acreage of developable acres, it would constitute an unavoidable adverse impact.Under all alternatives, loss of soil from the watershed is likely to continue to occur as a result of flooding andstormwater runoff. Over the long term, these impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1, and lower underAlternatives 2 and 3.Non-renewable mineral resources would continue to be extracted from the study area on an indefinite basis underAlternative 1, and on an interim basis under Alternatives 2 and 3. This ongoing extraction would constitute a longtermloss of these resources, although the material would be used for commercial purposes as intended by theGMA.Water ResourcesUnder all alternatives, the Gorst Creek watershed and the Gorst UGA would experience additional population andemployment growth. Development in the Gorst Creek UGA is anticipated under the alternatives would result in nosignificant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources. All alternatives would have a minor effect on waterresources from short-term construction related impacts. As previously described, Alternative 1 would have longtermmoderate impacts on water resources. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide long-term beneficial effectson water resources from adoption and implementation of the Watershed Characterization & Framework Plan.Alternative 3 provides the greatest ecological benefit by establishing a low intensity waterfront along the shorelineof Sinclair Inlet that would, as redevelopment occurs, partially restore natural hydrology along that portion of theshoreline.Air QualityNo significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localizeddust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measuresdescribed above are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of Gorst study areagrowth increases.Plants and AnimalsMost of the forested watershed is owned by the City of Bremerton and managed for very limited forestry andutility activities (see Section 3.14 Relationship to Plans and Policies). As such, large scale changes to wildlife habitatthere are not anticipated under any alternative. One area designated for protection in the WatershedCharacterization Study south of SR 3 (Assessment Unit 1) is zoned for Rural Residential uses by Kitsap County.Under Alternative 1, no added protective measures are considered and there could be a loss of forest cover thatcould displace wildlife. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, added measures such as LID requirements and clustering couldmitigate that potential impact.New impervious surfaces and cutting of trees would occur under all the alternatives particularly in the Gorst UGAbut also on Rural Residential lands in the watershed, contributing to stormwater runoff, flooding, andsedimentation of surface water resources, which would impact aquatic species that occur within the watershedand UGA. These impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1, but reduced under Alternatives 2 and 3 as capitalimprovements to the stormwater system and BMPs to reduce erosion and sediment export would beimplemented.NoiseAt the comprehensive planning level, implementation of the mitigation measures described above would avoidand/or reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant. If project-level impacts are identified as subsequentprojects are proposed, specific mitigation measures would be required to meet Kitsap County and City ofBremerton noise limits.Draft | June 2013 1-41