Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESSKIA and Gorst, impervious area would make up between 29.9 percent to 30.9 percent in the larger Sinclair Inletwatershed area; no estimates were available at the Gorst Creek Watershed boundaries only. Since the Gorst CreekWatershed outside of the Gorst UGA is not planned for land use changes, this result will apply to all alternatives forterritory outside of the Gorst UGA. See Table 3.13-3 High and Low Estimates of Total and Percent ImperviousSurface – Sinclair Inlet Watershed.Table 3.13-3High and Low Estimates of Total and Percent Impervious Surface – Sinclair Inlet WatershedWatershedGroupTotal Acres TIA Low Percent TotalImperviousSurfacePercentSinclair Inlet 27,012 8,071 29.9 8,334 30.9Source: Kitsap County 2012bGorst UGAUnder all alternatives, construction activities within the UGA would have the potential to impact utilities.Depending on the scale, construction projects would likely result in short-term disruptions of service. Scale andintensity of construction projects would vary by alternative. However, differences in scale and intensity of effectsare described in the following sections.Under all alternatives, the Gorst UGA would be annexed to the City of Bremerton, resulting in a transition fromCounty to City governance.The City of Bremerton has coordinated with the County during a UGA sizing and composition remand in 2012 thatidentified water and wastewater improvements listed above. Disruption in service would not likely occur becausethe City of Bremerton currently supplies drinking water and collects wastewater (Figure 3.13-1 Gorst DrinkingWater and Wastewater Systems.Under all alternatives, the water (drinking) and wastewater systems have the capacity to accommodateanticipated growth. However, only the projected growth for no action (Alternative 1) is accounted for in KitsapCounty CFP. Both action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) propose development at the mine site and wouldrequire an evaluation of drinking water and wastewater capital improvements which are described under therespective alternative.Considering the land use plans described in Section 2 Alternatives and the proposed developable coverage limitsproposed in the Draft Subarea Plan, all alternatives would have the potential to increase impervious areas asshown in Table 13.3-4 Comparison of Added Impervious Area in Gorst UGA. Alternatives 2 and 3 assume a greateramount of developable land than Alternative 1, largely due to the anticipated conversion of the mine site forresidential or mixed uses.Draft | June 2013 3-227