1 24.0 Visual Resources 2 This chapter evaluates the potential effects of the Project on visual resources in the 3 Project area. First, information is presented on existing visual resources and activities 4 known to occur in proximity to Reach 2B of the San Joaquin River. The information is 5 based on site visits, technical documents, and local and regional plans in the area. Using 6 this information as context, the analysis of visual-related impacts of the Project is 7 presented based on the characteristics of the Project alternatives including the character, 8 Project exposure, and existing visual conditions. 9 24.1 Environmental Setting 10 The visual resources of an area include the features of its landforms, vegetation, water 11 surfaces, and cultural modifications (physical changes caused by human activities) that 12 give the landscape its inherent visual qualities. Landscape features, natural appearing or 13 otherwise, form the overall impression of an area. This impression is referred to as 14 “visual character.” Visual character is studied as a point of reference to assess whether a 15 given project/action would appear compatible with the established features of the setting 16 or would contrast noticeably and unfavorably with them. 17 Visual resources also have a social setting, which includes public expectations, values, 18 goals, awareness, and concern regarding visual quality. This social setting is addressed as 19 “visual sensitivity,” the relative degree of public interest in visual resources and concern 20 over adverse changes in the quality of that resource. As applied to visual impact analyses, 21 sensitivity refers to public attitudes about specific views, or interrelated views, and is of 22 key importance to identifying critical public views, assessing how important a visual 23 impact may be, and whether or not it represents a significant impact. 24 24.1.1 Critical Public Views 25 Critical public views are sensitive public views that would be most affected by Project 26 actions (e.g., views with the greatest intensity of potential impact due to viewer proximity 27 to the Project, Project visibility, and duration of the affected view). Identifying critical 28 public views relies on the concept that sensitivity is a function of the viewer’s 29 expectations, activities, awareness, values, and goals. Public sensitivity is not always 30 related to obvious aesthetic appeal. The public may confer visual significance on 31 landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional (Federal 32 Highway Administration [FHWA] 1981); therefore, the visual resource setting is not 33 described in terms of aesthetic appeal. Instead, the importance of the affected landscape 34 is inferred from the indicators of sensitivity. The degree of visual sensitivity is treated as 35 occurring at one of four levels as follows: 36 • High Sensitivity. High sensitivity indicates a great potential for the public to react 37 strongly to any lessening of visual quality. Concern is expected to be great Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project Draft Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report 24-1 – June 2015 San Joaquin River Restoration Program 1 because the affected views are rare, unique, or are special to the region or locale 2 in other ways. Also, high visual sensitivity is assumed to exist where landscapes, 3 particular views, or the visual characteristics of certain features are protected 4 through policies, goals, objectives, and design controls in public planning 5 documents. 6 • Moderate Sensitivity. Moderate sensitivity indicates a substantial potential for the 7 public to voice some concern over visual impacts of moderate to high intensity. 8 Often, the affected views are secondary in importance or are similar to others 9 commonly available to the public. Noticeably adverse changes would probably be 10 tolerated if the essential character of the views remains dominant. 11 • Low Sensitivity. Low sensitivity indicates that a small minority of the public may 12 have a concern over scenic/visual resource impacts on the affected area. Only the 13 greatest intensity of adverse change in the condition of aesthetics/visual resources 14 would have the potential to register with the public as a substantial reduction in 15 visual quality. 16 • No Sensitivity. No sensitivity indicates that the views are not available to the 17 public, there are no identifiable indications of public interest in the quality of 18 scenic/visual resources within potentially affected public views, or there’s no 19 concern over adverse impacts to those scenic/visual resources. 20 The range of sensitive views was considered and several representative views in which 21 the Project features would be most noticeable were selected for detailed analysis. The 22 selection was based primarily on proximity to Project features and the degree and 23 duration of exposure within sensitive public views. Consideration was also given to 24 having the views be representative of the public experience (i.e., that they be from 25 viewing positions frequently used by the public and readily located). 26 Within the Project area, public access is extremely limited and there are few public 27 viewing positions from which any of the features of the Project may be seen. Land along 28 the river reach is predominantly in private ownership and used for agricultural 29 production. Public access is limited to the San Mateo Avenue crossing from the north 30 along Road 13, which is a Madera County-maintained road up to, but not crossing the 31 river. Access to the crossing from the south along San Mateo Avenue is unauthorized, as 32 the road passes through private land. Public access to the Project area elsewhere is 33 limited to Mendota Pool via a public park, a short stretch of the San Joaquin River below 34 Mendota Dam, and at a few areas along the west shore of Mendota Pool immediately 35 upstream of the dam. Public access to Mendota Dam itself is restricted. Additionally, 36 there are four homes at the north end of Bass Avenue, and the residents would have 37 visual access to features of two of the Project alternatives from the road approaching or 38 leaving these homes. 39 Concerning existing public access to the San Joaquin River, see Section 20.1.3. Also see 40 Section 16.1.1 for a description of the public trust easement under the California State 41 Lands Commission (CSLC). To access the easement, legal access is required – the public 42 is not entitled to cross private lands to use a public trust easement. Draft Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project 24-2 – June 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report 24.0 Visual Resources 1 San Mateo Avenue Crossing 2 The San Mateo Avenue crossing is a dip crossing consisting of a culvert to convey low 3 flows and an earthen embankment supporting the roadbed. During higher flows the road 4 is overtopped and may be impassable to vehicles. Prior to Interim Flows, the river bed 5 here was dry for most of the year and informally used for off-highway vehicle use. When 6 flows are present, the public access the river at this location to swim (field observation) 7 and to launch non-motorized watercraft for fishing and other purposes (see Chapter 20.0, 8 “Recreation”). Recreation uses imply variable sensitivity to the potential for adverse 9 impacts on the quality of the visual resources. 10 It is unknown how many people access the river from the south along San Mateo Avenue 11 compared to the north along Road 13. As noted, San Mateo Avenue is not a public road 12 2.5 miles north of Highway 180 and access to the river using this road is unauthorized. It 13 is assumed that people using the southern approach are predominately coming from 14 Mendota (7.3 miles from the center of town to the crossing), while those using the 15 northern route are coming from Firebaugh (11.6 miles away from the river crossing 16 starting at Highway 33). 17 The volume of recreation use here is not known, but there are indications that the number 18 of recreationists using the river crossing is small compared to the number enjoying the 19 river near Mendota (discussed below) and Firebaugh. For example, there are a number of 20 recreation opportunities along the river in Firebaugh that are close at hand, and access to 21 fishing opportunities below Mendota Dam and in Mendota Pool are closer to Firebaugh 22 than those at or near the river crossing. These recreation opportunities in Firebaugh or 23 nearby, coupled with a circuitous and lengthy route to the river crossing, suggests that the 24 crossing receives little public use compared to the sites at and near Firebaugh and 25 Mendota. Additionally, public parking at or near the river crossing is limited, and there 26 appear to be no turnouts in the public right-of-way along Road 13 (the closest public 27 road), limiting the number of recreationists. Also, parking along the private dirt road on 28 the Madera County side of the river is not authorized. 29 Sensitivity: Low. Anecdotal evidence for fishing, watercraft put-in, and off-highway 30 vehicle opportunities suggest that there is some recreation at the river crossing; therefore, 31 there may be some public sensitivity to potential visual impacts to the views of and from 32 the river crossing. Undesignated but popularly used or appreciated recreation sites are 33 treated as having moderate sensitivity; however, this site is of comparatively low 34 popularity as compared to other river recreation sites in the vicinity (California 35 Department of Fish and Wildlife [DFW] 2013). As a result, sensitivity for the potentially 36 affected views at the river crossing is expected to be low.