Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURESGMA Goal8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhancenatural resource-based industries, includingproductive timber, agricultural, and fisheriesindustries. Encourage the conservation of productiveforest lands and productive agricultural lands, anddiscourage incompatible uses.9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space,enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish andwildlife habitat, increase access to natural resourcelands and water, and develop parks and recreationfacilities.10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhancethe state's high quality of life, including air and waterquality, and the availability of water.11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage theinvolvement of citizens in the planning process andensure coordination between communities andjurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those publicfacilities and services necessary to supportdevelopment shall be adequate to serve thedevelopment at the time the development is availablefor occupancy and use without decreasing currentservice levels below locally established minimumstandards.13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage thepreservation of lands, sites, and structures that havehistorical or archaeological significance.DiscussionAlternative 1 applies a mineral resources designation to thecurrent mine site. Alternatives 2 and 3 assume mineral extractionwill continue in the near term until the property owner completesmining and reclamation.All Alternatives presume CUL will be maintained for forest andhabitat management. Alternatives 2 and 3 would establish aWatershed Characterization & Framework Plan that identifies notonly CUL protection but also other areas important for protectionor restoration for fish and wildlife habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3highlight County-owned property that is to be set aside for openspace and recreation.All alternatives would implement shoreline and critical arearegulations. Alternatives 2 and 3 use a science-based andlandscape level approach to identifying areas of protection,restoration, and development with BMPs to protect waterprocesses and habitat.All alternatives are undergoing public review as part of thewatershed and subarea planning effort. Chapter 2 of this Draft EISdescribes the public participation efforts to dateAll alternatives increase the demand for public facilities andservices, particularly Alternatives 2 and 3 that add greaterpopulation. Alternative 1 would continue implementation of theKitsap County CFP. Alternatives 2 and 3 due to greater growth,would require mitigation measures to ensure adequate facilitiesand services. Alternatives 2 and 3 also assume transition to Citygovernance with City levels of service. See Section 3.13 Utilities,Waster, Wastewater, and Stormwater.All alternatives would be subject to Comprehensive Plan policiesand federal and state laws that promote the protection andpreservation of historic and cultural features. Alternatives 2 and 3would adopt the Watershed Characterization & Framework Planthat includes additional policies to protect cultural resources inGorst (also analyzed in Section 3.10 Cultural Resources).GMA Comprehensive Plans and City of Bremerton and County Plan ConsistencyUnder Alternative 1, the watershed would be protected through standard natural environment policies of theCounty and City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plans. CUL use and zoning designations would continue the intentfor minimal land disturbance on CUL. Alternatives 2 and 3 would coordinate activities in the watershed among theCity of Bremerton and County and would further advance County and City of Bremerton goals and policies thatpromote coordinated habitat and watershed planning.For the Gorst UGA, Alternatives 2 and 3 propose adoption of a subarea plan, which is an optional element underGMA. Alternative 1 would continue the current approach of planning for Gorst as part of its standard elements.Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue current plans and regulations which are consistent with each other. Forexample, the City of Bremerton shows Kitsap County land use designations in its assigned UGAs and has predesignatedzones that most closely match County zones. Action Alternatives would be consistent with County andCity of Bremerton plans in that both the County and the City of Bremerton are anticipated to integrate theWatershed Characterization & Framework Plan and Gorst Subarea Plan into their Comprehensive Plans.Draft | June 2013 3-255