Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYTopic Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3area would require developerinstalled improvements to thewastewater system toaccommodate new growthStormwaterNew stormwater standardswould not be adopted, anddeficiencies would continueto be unresolved. However,Kitsap County’s CFP wouldeventual incorporatemeasures for addressingdeficiencies. Runoff duringstorm events wouldcontinue to cause sheetflow over roads anddischarge directly tostreams and water bodiesincluding Gorst Creek andSinclair Inlet. The increasein development, particularlyfrom commercialdevelopment would alsolikely increase impervioussurfaces to about 51.3acres.Current deficiencies instormwater conveyance wouldbe resolved. Stormwatermanagement on proposed newdevelopment andredevelopment would followthe Watershed Characterization& Framework Plan and result inreduced stormwater runoff.Compilation of watershed dataand use of the hydrology andhydraulic modeling would alsoassist in identify priority areasand optimize investment ofstormwater facilities. However,for a conservative analysis inthis EIS, a comparison ofimpervious area shows anincrease in impervious areaover the Alternative 1 No Actionoption due to the addeddevelopment of the mine site at68 acres.Similar to Alternative 2, butthe estimated imperviousacres are slightly higher at59 acres.TelecommunicationsDemand forTelecommunication ServiceSee Impacts Common to AllAlternativesSee Impacts Common to AllAlternativesSee Impacts Common to AllAlternativesRelationship to Plans and PoliciesGMA Planning GoalsAlternative 1 meets GMAgoals for economic andhousing growth in urbanareas, supported bytransportation and publicfacility improvements.Alternative 1 would applyshoreline and critical arearegulations.Alternative 2 meets GMA goalsfor economic and housinggrowth in urban areas,supported by transportationand public facilityimprovements. Alternative 2would apply shoreline andcritical area regulations.Alternative 2 would furthermeet the intent of GMA goalsfor open space andenvironmental protection.Similar to Alternative 2.Countywide PopulationForecastsAlternative 1 is consistentwith CPP allocations.Alternative 2 assumes greaterpopulation allocations thanfound in the CPPs.Alternative 3 assumesgreater populationallocations than found inthe CPPs.Countywide Planning PoliciesVision 2040Alternative 1 would beconsistent by focusingAlternative 2 would beconsistent by focusing growthSame as Alternative 2.In terms of reducingDraft | June 2013 1-21