Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESAccording to the GMA, "critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems:A. WetlandsB. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable waterC. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areasD. Frequently flooded areasE. Geologically hazardous areas.(RCW 306.70A.030) Counties and cities must regulate and protect these critical areas. Both the County and City ofBremerton have adopted critical area regulations (see Section 3.4 Plants and Animals). The study area includes allof these critical areas. The City of Bremerton and County buffers are similar for smaller streams (less than 20 cfs)and wetlands. See Table 3.14-3 Bremerton and Kitsap County Shoreline, Stream, and Wetland Buffer Comparison.City of Port OrchardThe City of Port Orchard boundaries in the watershed reflect the McCormick Woods master planned communitydeveloped based on a development agreement with Kitsap County. The Gorst Creek Watershed Framework &Characterization Planning efforts are not going to influence this already approved and annexed development.Therefore, the City of Port Orchard plans are not further considered in this policy analysis.The Suquamish TribeThe Suquamish Tribe has control over developments that occurs on their reservation lands and are responsible fordeveloping plans to guide that growth. The Suquamish Tribe has usual and accustom fishing and hunting areasthroughout the county including Gorst. Together with Washington State, the Suquamish Tribe co-manages ahatchery on Gorst Creek and takes an active role in managing the natural resources within the watershed.ImpactsIMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVESAll alternatives would maintain adopted land use plans in the watershed, which maintains consistency with currentKitsap County and City of Bremerton plans. All alternatives also maintain present UGA boundaries, allowing forconsistency with GMA provisions regarding UGA sizing. Last each alternative has been developed and reviewedduring public outreach opportunities as identified in Section 2 Alternatives. Comparisons of alternatives’consistency with state, regional, and local plans follows.GMA Planning GoalsAll alternatives meet GMA goals for economic and housing growth in urban areas, supported by transportation andpublic facility improvements. All would apply shoreline and critical area regulations. Alternatives 2 and 3 wouldfurther meet the intent of GMA goals for open space and environmental protection. See Table 3.14-4 GMA GoalConsistency 4.Draft | June 2013 3-253