Final Environmental Impact Report ~RUNNING FENCE County of Sonoma, California Draft Environmental Impact Report, Comments and Responses Environmental Science Associates, Inc. ‘ he ESA-EIR-1975 October, 1975 Volumes 1 and 2 Final Environmental Impact Report RUNNING FENCE Prepared under contract to the SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Santa Rosa, California Volume I: Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume II: Comments and Responses (this report is printed on 100% recycled paper) Delta Printing, Santa Clara, California Environmental Science Associates, Inc. 1291€. Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California 94404 415/573-8500 1390 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 415/552-4775 8725 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90034 213/838-2221 Ais voy Cy ' ees u) at iy a: A Un 1 in yt we Nh i i Di +) et yi iy f t ey ie mh iv Mi FV wi i / ; iat a eh iN ‘i y Hi He i i vay aly nas Bt if a ne nh aah 4 0 bi it ; ae a) W yi a | yy een ey th } f PY i ene thy A i 7 f nh cy se ii ey mm M3IA INVLSIG 9 -ONIMVUC S,LSILYY ESA-EIR-1975 October,- 1975 Volume 1 of 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report RUNNING FENCE Prepared under contract to the SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Santa Rosa, California Environmental Science Associates, Inc. 1291E. Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California 94404 415/573-8500 1390 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 415/552-4775 8725 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90034 213/838-2221 SONOMA COUNTY RETAINED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED RUNNING FENCE WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE RUNNING FENCE CORPORATION. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES (ESA) HAS USED ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREPARE A COMPLETE AND COMPETENT REPORT, BUT ESA SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR COSTS OR DAMAGES INCURRED BY ANY CLIENT OR THIRD PARTIES CAUSED BY DELAY OR TERMINATION OF ANY PROJECT DUE TO JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRA- TIVE ACTION, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS BASED ON THE FORM OR CONTENT OF THIS REPORT OR PORTION THEREOF PREPARED BY ESA. THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE CODE OF ETHICAL PRACTICE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS. A COPY OF THIS CODE IS INCLUDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE OF THIS REPORT. CODE OF ETHICAL PRACTICE WHEREAS, the goal of my endeavoristo pro- Rely upon the independent judgment of vide a full-disclosure environmental document — an interdisciplinary team to determine in which decision makers and the public can the impacts, define and evaluate all place full confidence, | WILL Examine all relationships or actions which could be legitimately interpreted as a conflict of interest by clients, offi- cials, the public, or my peers; and I will fully disclose in the environmental document or other writing available to the public or the client my financial or personal interest in the project and each alternative, including the no-build or null alternative. Encourage, by every reasonable means, environmental planning to begin in the earliest stages of project conceptualiza- tion. Refuse to create an environmental document as a justification of a project or asa platform for opposition or advocacy. Abstain from attempting improperly to delay the outcome of an action or project through the environmental document process. Produce an objective environmental document; [ will not allow any of my relationships with clients, employers, or others to interfere with my duty to pro- vide a full disclosure environmental document. Actively follow, and encourage the ob- servance by others of, the principles of affirmative action and equal opportunity in all hiring and contractual activities. - IF PREPARING a document pursuant to the environmental document process, 1 WILL Define a level of investigation appro- priate to the nature and scope of the pro- posed project or action, and its probable impacts; Select and use qualified persons of per- tinent disciplines in the conduct of the study; Incorporate the best principles of the de- sign and environmental planning arts in recommending measures for mitigation of environmental harm and enhance- ment of environmental quality; ASSOCIATION — of ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and assess short-term versus long-term productivity with and with- out the project or action; Encourage public participation from the beginning in an open, frank and produc- tive atmosphere to stimulate democratic consensus; Write in a clear and accurate manner, to achieve and remove all possible bias; List all study participants, their qualifica- tions and affiliations; Cite all sources, written and oral. Strive to create a complete, scientifically accurate, objective environmental document that can be defended profes- sionally. IF REVIEWING an environmental document, I WILL Insist upon review of original technical reports or findings upon which conclu- sions or recommendations summarized in the environmental document are based, to ensure they are in conformity with applicable laws and guidelines; Assure that the assessment reflects my own best judgment where | am qualified to judge, and that of independent per- sons expert in areas beyond my capabil- ity to assess effects deemed ‘‘signifi- cant’; Determine that the document is consis- tent with all pertinent laws, ordinances, guidelines, plans and policies to the best of my knowledge and ability; Certify acceptability of the environmen- tal document only if Lam satisfied that it has been prepared and reviewed in con- formance with all of the above. Therefore, I subscribe to this Code; for Environmental, Science Associates Signature Paul Zigman, President TABLE OF CONTENTS itll el. Mmouanw> AND ei Caan tepmeunehevcyeweiscctel oxavey Rakes Veremoremeial ever ekoavs ielonsceleyerersyeveRa sack Statement sor Applacant.SODJICCtIVES.., .jc1s/<,esse,0rcse.ersfeele «¢ LOCA NOM s atepars/che ota! ataiere:aieia ny ousten elake ebelatareliolenatere’e stale Meelis TechnicalMMes crap CLONE; sweye's ceils, avevers: los ole; avbtera is tet vine! Wiss ath ee Legal History, Of :the: PROjSCE serais sites: sievetol oro teieaisveueletelee: 3% Approach to “the E.0 oR's..sjeafeyepageptete soe e.s 'sbeecete lors ofthe ost octets Environmental Setting, ‘Impact, Mitigation <)iv.'. «(slice A. Socal ECOMOMAC a5; .ieccisid exystoheustellaysbaiole' sails iajsys o..o1e 8 ope ae sie AT CHACCMOBY: « avataiccsna rarcha'n Seka ts Folw accor er vial sete tete > Sad tev ieiteFedstaree Poca rate EIS Oise iratra/cotayie yatlorstinis sysl eunpslinus’oysiave se celejsys cole a ayeusioent ote Population and Community Characteristics.......... COMMUNITY, AT CI ELIDS Se eceisyrie\epat's ic yore sols jousiis’ sieve dchauelatnterelstalens COMMUNAL VASO VE CCS sereyocorsyoremasnes« iss ceueue eusuvlelieiouis ie isyeie/ viele EGONOMMUCS oye sieicicha as etolelsiaveters-/ sce bre1s e/a) 0/0) # asic ine ors soe, Slavens Watsuiaill/ROSENG ETC cyte vara ohaeen (ove s)ois) Sie’ oj tislete sith sya istete aie vos Tratiic/ Circulation Parking; ./.ic/s5 os evasievevereie’> oe eve EME Ts Diy sarere) ce chee a) oveicnolovere .atevayeneusts olsl cvelorsisysierelciers etaicteferstons WOANANHPWNNrF + BilOlOpIeA/ Phy SICA saith stats rete eyarets Oa oe cieiate clears oie weivce ils Ecology A) MaTtNe MB TOMO Sys. cheetah era: sievalsyavers.at'e,01 «/e1aheuarsiols (oi8'eeusseyste D)Pderrestretia I) BiOMO Ry sie m0 cie,seis sates w aya aiarere siete se ales Somd's/ Geology / Seismology < iar aise. «islaleiese cles lste,«jare sieveleece Water Resources...... EMoverioravelaloistetote tetera cvevsicrerenesesevevene Air Quailkity /Meteoro logy 5: keys, ois: «seo ote wieteeteisve's. sere INGHISE Mew ctster er sedoss uh ccuobertaiens, cucteiebene as chsbesebarettloe neces ab aor naPWm IMpacts Overy ewer... acts Wlet store esse) sere lake's ate.alesetele’eraverete cbereue aia A. B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impact............. Relationship between Local Short-term Impact and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Pong LSrmM PET OGUC ELV TE 0155615 ie ote o/0) 4, «/0)0' 9, 0.04/00 5:6, vhaie re. wets = Irreversible Environmental’ ChangeS'.;< )<c < says « «evel v00,¢ a OLOW CN aTMaale MGs DIMPACT «6 ;c:5-c101aie dys) vistas 6100s, aha-siie! oso iehe ose: Sil Si Sil 32 35 38 40 48 53 55 13 76 76 90 108 124 27 S37 143 143 143 144 144 Algernatives sto the Proposed, Project... 51. oo. cic <s\< «is che sivas 147 NTI PO MTDC ate areserane seuscy aur steWavaiekev he isy eva evtor 61 sr ioV/axat-sveLases suaioveueVensheran onesie 151 A REPORe ERED AME TaSicuot.yatatchater neve -Vorsy shel Vanover orershovel susvolouenetencterehehs 5a B. Sources of Information (Individuals and Ore SAMMI AeA OMS) kogsraneearchs oer eens) se ar eka\ se 5evoiccnSyoks:,cvolaleserspots staxsisks 152 Cs REGenemeen Idi Sitaesr sexcvarcpenes ster cxcter etree ern o's “ahs @ldteae ehavareuesictore 156 D. Rare and Endangered Native Plants of Southwestern Sonoma/Adjacent Marin County............ 163 E., AmphibranssFound ain’ SonomaCounty:./..1321.- <- rs ois selene 165 Fo Repel les Found: am: SONOMA: COUNEY:.-</c.0/<'cr<ieraterels) o's avelere cele 166 G. Bards Recorded an Sonoma (COUMEY’ .\</./<sslsie/ els cisleye aia selelelole 6 167 He Mamma lis sO fs SOmOma's COUN Yi... > ais. ois,'e10 s:siwie ois eenete rs eleleis s 6 es 174 J. Visitor-Attracting Features of the RUNNING FENCE and Their Locations/ Potential Traffic CONGES ELON MLOMIMESY Lape ectegoccveneres sieiereconc evra roncreiokaveiclenekormrereeeys na K. Traffic/Circulation/Parking Details ANGMBA Cpa. Oude ercwalevenekevshs toreness sc veredh ole ole wrcvene RCloeonarceemrete 197 [ee PAMChae OL py Reporter's sats areraeitle ie oieusiele oe lois ar Meontonemele 213 Ms Ocean Engine Crean Gisyavs lies lor rotate jwiciere. ora erg enced werner cele 215 Nic Elna DIES ciara ten ede eve roskedoyensdis fate corres -o'ev vo eral javors'atehisvaroteucteoretayate 231 TABLE FIGURE Fronti Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure TABLES Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table OF CONTENTS S spiece I PAKea LOCACTOME sc ochevensrore os \ete ay srenece toys 96) 6 oveseresyopeteece Zee ELON ECE ME OCA OM aterieieieiaisre ovis eisiavelsioieloieiane tersneiejieratnc SP LLOPOSed RUNNING ehHNGHmROULC a. sie rercielsisiels a' cleieleeiereie Te eAGCIS ty Sy Drawn yea GlOSC—UD Ivalice: etelale els seri cioioieieisior elale 5) plypicall Interior span) Nomenclature... 2... see Oy Local” Road INGEWOTKKS are so 6. 5.6 5 oie repo, oisailor ole raslererenatons: auctei ate 7 Elevation of Marine Biology Study Area........... 8 Sensitive Plant vAneadsias sc acc ce ete eietele o)orclts' 6! ove ayevowrs DRSESLOPES Is caele rare ctersleceteve sasers, ssiaenar.shel ore: jars! acai wleusrarsrorereneress NOM Geology, cans SOMES ia cistetaic, 6 cie\eiois) level siniele|e ele orsisyshoreretaiere J-1 U.S. and State Routes, and Coastal (ReereatdonvATea’s 55%. ciac 1s: ofc /te; oie ane oleiere orelevsiere J-Z2eCincuiliata ong CharacterlStdCS acres suse lelelelelelensleheiereletele JoSeEenCeMVIewSeandsdlnaitct CaHazardSmicrccvicie cterersteieisiereste Ol OCall’g Road JNCEWONK acces crate ore srercheievevess c*csoretere: vevorereiers Level of Service, Two-Lane Rural Road............ - Fuel Consumption in Access and Viewing........... 3 Rainfall Means and Extremes, Santa Rosa’, VOSWaMO MS ats visisyene ersicieisl aneseueiesetevenevepelelere 4 Oxidant, Carbon Monoxide, and Suspended Particulate Experience, 1973, 1974. 22s .200scccsc Dust Emissions from Unpaved Roads. .........0<-s-. Peak Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentration.......... Noise Impact of the Vehicular Traffic Generated by the Proposed RUNNING CEENGE SE LOW CGE oicis (6 onc/ofate ere, o40 eVolotnl <) overere sioner K-1 Traffic Counts, August 30 & September 22, 1975... K-2 Assumptions: Visitor Access and Viewing.......... K-3 Level of Service, Two-Lane Rural Road............ Nr NINN TOPE 140 200 205 207 vii SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Running Fence is planned by the artist, Christo, as a temporary construction, in place for a maximum of two weeks. It is proposed by the applicant, the Running Fence Corporation, to be 18 feet high and more than 24 miles long. The structure would be essentially an assembly of 18-feet by 62-feet white nylon panels, supported by cables and poles, the latter anchored in soil or rock. The ocean portion would consist of one nylon panel 300 feet long, tapering from 18 feet high at the land end to 2 feet "high'"' at the anchored seaward end. The route starts in the vicinity of Penngrove in Sonoma County, and follows a curving westerly path to the vicinity of, or into, the Pacific Ocean at a point about midway between the Estero Americano and the Estero de San Antonio, in northwestern Marin County. The land portion of the Fence proper would be on private property only, with one possible exception (Estero Road right-of-way, in Marin County). Construction is proposed to start in April 1976, with the distribution of materials on the properties along the route. The Fence would be in place for viewing during a maximum of two weeks in September 1976; it would then be disassembled within 4-5 weeks, so that no trace of the con- struction per se would remain after October 31, 1976. Many mitigating features have been designed into the current plans, some as part of the original design, others resulting from conditions set by public agencies, particularly Sonoma and Marin Counties, at an earlier stage of approval. Mitigation plans and further suggestions for mitigation appear here at the appropriate points in the summary of project impacts. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION In this summary, the emphasis is not on the potential adverse impacts (which are discussed in detail in the text of the EIR), but rather on the residue of significant adverse impacts remaining after the implementation of the applicant-accepted mitigation features. Beneficial impacts also are summarized. Residual impacts and mitigation features are generally presented in the order in which they are discussed in the text. In general, the major significant adverse impacts arise from the large numbers of visitors expected to be attracted to the area during the two-week viewing period. There are no known archaeological sites along the route. Since con- struction activities include no excavation, they are not likely to damage any unknown sites. Nevertheless, the permits authorizing the project should S-1 contain conditions or safeguards, such as a performance bond, to assure _ that potential sites are protected from damage or destruction, should arti- facts or other evidence be discovered during construction. The major increased burden on local community services due to the presence of the Running Fence will arise from the impacts of visitors attracted to the area. Additional police services will be required, to control traffic and thus minimize congestion, and also to prevent trespass on private property, with its risk of fire initiation. Additional fire- protection services will also be required. The applicant has developed a program for training and deploying civilian monitors, who would guide visi- tors onto any private property made available, and discourage trespass in general. The applicant also plans to hire off-duty police/sheriff personnel, for traffic control. In the event of major problems, the Sheriff's Depart- ments of both Marin and Sonoma Counties would have the responsiblity to lend aid. The applicant has agreed to pay the cost of all such services, including those of the California Highway Patrol. Potential fire initiation during construction is mitigated by a series of measures planned by the applicant. These include the provision of fire extinguishers, spark arresters, and skid plates on construction vehicles. The aforementioned monitors will be trained by the California State Division of Forestry in the control of small grass fires. The applicant has agreed to pay the cost of additional fire-fighting services provided by local fire departments. However, costs of any Services provided by the California State Division of Forestry cannot be reimbursed by the applicant, unless he is directly responsible for them. Potential interference with bus transportation to the local schools, particularly during the children's return home in the afternoons, will be partially miti- gated by the traffic-control measures above. The Running Fence Corporation plans to provide for the stationing of an ambulance in the Valley Ford area at such times and location as will be determined by further consultation with public-safety authorities. It is suggested that, in order to keep litter to a minimum, plans include placement of waste containers at stopping points along the roadway network; also, the Fence removal phase could include roadside clean-up by the monitors. The Sonoma County conditions include posting of a $150,000 bond by the applicant "...to insure compliance with the conditions of this permit...". The proposed project is expected to have no adverse net impact on the finances of local governments or local public-service agencies. In addition, the project would provide employment for local people. Fence materials would be given to property owners who have easement agreements with the applicant. One of the trucks with flotation tires would be given to Sonoma County, while a bio-kinetic machine (which converts animal wastes into animal feed) would be given to Marin County. Christo's past practice has been to use funds from his personal sales of drawings (generated as a result of his large-scale projects) to support later projects. Thus, the project cannot be considered to be a commercial venture in the usual sense. Nevertheless, there is no legal guarantee that all future income, for example from the sale of drawings of the Running Fence project, will go to the Running Fence Corporation or its successors for future large-scale projects, nor is it certain that the net worth of the Corporation at any time will not revert to its principal stockholders, including the Christos. The chief potential adverse visual and aesthetic impact is the blockage, or the partial blockage, of close-in and panoramic views from residences along the Fence route. Another is the dominance (as opposed to view block- age) of the Fence as an element of the close-in views from some residences. Areas where these can occur include the Penngrove sections on the eastern flank of Meacham Hill and the Happy Acres subdivision, on the southeast side of Meacham Road. Traffic attracted by the Fence is the main source of unavoidable adverse environmental impact. Although most of the direct and secondary effects (which include congestion, air-quality impairment, noise and energy consump- tion) are temporary, those associated with congestion and the potential interference with emergency traffic can be significant. As many as 270,000 visitors might be expected (probability significantly less than 50-50) during the two-week display period; on the peak day, 30,000 people (10,000 autos) might be expected. Overloading of the access and viewing road network, including sections of U.S. Highway 101, could occur, particularly on the second (peak) Sunday of the display period. Such overloading could lead to stop-and-go flow, traffic backups onto the freeway, cars running out of gasoline, boiling radiators, traffic accidents, and entrapment of emergency vehicles. Highway 101 appears to be the controlling element of the road net- work. On the reasonable assumption that interest will develop as the display period proceeds, so that visitor traffic on the first days of display (planned to be weekdays) will be relatively light, there appears to be time, after the erection of the Fence, to assess the likelihood that visitor traffic will reach capacity levels, and thus to implement one or more contingency plans for handling high volumes of visitor traffic. The applicant has agreed to be responsible for the costs of developing such plans, and of their implemen- tation. Some elements have already been agreed to; these include, as noted, the provision of monitors, the hiring of off-duty Sheriff's deputies, and the reimbursement of the costs of provision of traffic-control services by the County Sheriff's Departments and the California Highway Patrol. The Santa Rosa Area Office of the California Highway Patrol has the ultimate responsibility for decisions about traffic mitigation. Captain Eric Denton of that Office has the authority to require removal of the Running Fence, or any portion thereof, should he deem it necessary. The applicant has agreed to honor such a request immediately. The principal consumption of energy will result from travel by the visitors to the Fence. A worst-case analysis, assuming maximum reasonably possible visitor volume for the full two-week display period, with all visi- tor autos traversing the full length of the Fence route in both directions, indicated total fuel consumption of about 1.4 million gallons of gasoline and about 350,000 gallons of jet fuel (the latter based on the assumption that one percent of the visitors would travel to the area by air, with an average one-way trip of 1500 miles). No allowance was made for dual-purpose trips, or for the possibility that local drivers would be using their autos for other recreational purposes if they were not traveling to the Fence. $-3 Implications of the Fence for ecological resources are discussed first with respect to the intertidal portions of the coastal zone part of the route. Intertidally, the area is similar to many hundreds of like sites located along the California coastline. It is not of unique biological significance. The changes to take place are all of short duration and should impact only the deeper waters where the anchors are to be set, and perhaps a small portion of the offshore surface waters. This impact will be minor as well as temporary The presence of two sea anchors for a two-week period is likely to have no long-term biological effect, relative to the natural phenomena which occur all of the time. While the placement of the final on-shore support pole might possibly cause some erosion and sloughing of rock or dirt onto the upper intertidal area, there already is and has been considerable erosion and sloughing of cliff material onto the intertidal. The area,biologically, is one in which the present communities have either adjusted to this natural phenomenon or are displaced as a result of it. The possible addition of a minuscule amount of additional erosion is considered to be irrelevant. The conclusions as to the insignificance of long-term effects on the biotic communities apply even in the unlikely event of storm damage during the September display period. On the land portion of the Fence route (including that within the Coastal Zone boundary), no rare or endangered plants were found during the September 1975 field visit; this does not prove that such species do not exist along the route. Potentially sensitive areas include the coastal bluff and its immediate vicinity; freshwater marshy or vernally wet areas; and rocky outcrops which have been protected from grazing. The major potential for damage to sensitive areas would occur during the construction and removal phases. This has been partially mitigated by features built into the applicant's design, including use of trucks with flotation tires and special techniques (winching of equipment, use of hand tools) on the steeper slopes, plus plans for extensive training of construction and removal crews, and agreement to abide by decisions of County-approved biologists and geologists accompanying the crews. Potential biological damage from failure of the Fence during its display period is partially mitigated by extensive design and testing, including full-scale tests, of the panel/pole/ cable/anchor system. The terrestrial-biology consultants strongly recommend a subsequent field survey to be carried out in the spring of 1976, when rare or endangered plant species would become evident, if present along the route. They recommend also that hillside seep areas, especially along the coastal bluff, be avoided, even by foot traffic during construction. Similar recommendations apply to rocky outcrops further inland. Methods for operating near such areas are detailed. In general, they recommend the avoidance of work in any area while it is still damp following the winter rains. With respect to the ptotection of animal life, the terrestrial-biology consultants recommend that passages be left at certain specific points in the route so that deer and other vertebrates can continue their normal movements during the two-week display period. They recommend also that the Fence panels not be put in place across certain creeks; in fact, that not even the top cable : be suspended at such locations. Further recommendations include the attach- S-4 ment of visible strips to Fence cables before the mounting of panels, to prevent danger to birds (along likely flyways), and the delay of the display period until the end of the Coastal Deer Season. A final recommendation is that construction be begun last, and the Fence removed earliest, in the por- tion of the route between Valley Ford and the coast. This is actually part of the applicant's plan. The terrestrial-biology consultants conclude that because of the ephemeral nature of the Fence, and on the assumption that the mitigation suggestions will be followed, the biological effects of the Fence will be only temporary, aside from possible erosion damage. Potential effects on soils have been presented under biological impacts above. It should be pointed out that field reconnaissance by the applicant's engineers led to a new alignment of the route at Fence Segment 11, to avoid an existing landslide. Aside from energy consumption, associated principally with visitor travel, there will be little consumption of resources, since most of the materials for the Fence are surplus, and all will be supplied to the easement providers, for further use or for sale. Also, plans are to cut all anchor cables at ground level and drive them at least 18 inches below grade, backfilling the holes with sand, so that little visible evidence of the Fence will remain along the route. Mitigation measures designed into the project plan appear to minimize surface-soil erosion, even in the sensitive coastal bluff area. There appears to be little likelihood of runoff (sedimentation) problems. Thus, surface- water quality is unlikely to be adversely effected. Air-quality impacts are expected to be minimal. In no event are area suspended-particulate (dust) standards likely to be exceeded because of the project. A worst-case analysis of pollutants produced by visitor traffic on the peak viewing day indicated that it is highly unlikely that such traffic will cause local violations of the national standards for carbon monoxide. This judgment holds even if there are intermittent traffic jams along area roadways. It appears, further, that such traffic will have only a very small, and probably unmeasurable, impact on the smog level in the air basin. Construction noise would be perceivable at many of the residences along the Fence route. It could produce levels that would strongly interfere with both outdoor and indoor residential activities at some homes along the route. For a (hypothetical) residence immediately next to the Fence, such levels would persist for a maximum of three days. For most of the 20 to 30 residences affected, such interference would persist for less than one day. A worst- case analysis of noise produced by visitor traffic indicated that noise levels along local roads could increase by up to 23 decibels (dBA), about a 5-fold increase in perceived noise. The greatest increases would occur in the now most-quiet areas. The effect on the Pepper Road portion of the Fence route, for example, would be to raise noise levels to about those now experienced along Petaluma/Valley Ford Road west of the Highway 1 intersection (near Valley Ford). S-5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM IMPACT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY As noted, increased traffic, a local short-term impact, will affect the local road network for a maximum of two weeks, producing the most significant of all the impacts of the proposed project. Noise may increase with traffic increase during the viewing phase, and air quality will change (but not significantly) with addition of fuel pollutants. In addition, vegetation, if damaged by the construction and removal activities and by the movement of the Fence'’s materials when in place, is expected to return to normal state within a few years. Therefore, the above impacts can be con- sidered as local short-term impacts, which would not interfere in the long- term with the land and its use, the functioning of the road network, or the lives of local residents. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Soil cores removed for placemént of Fence poles and replaced with sand (as well as anchor holes backfilled with sand) create an irreversible environmental change; one that is somewhat comparable to the usual farm operation of digging post holes for fences. Grasses and herbs are expected to grow back to normal within a few years. If further landsliding should be induced in the coastal bluff area, this would represent an irreversible change; however, its effect on life in the intertidal areas below would be temporary, in the context of the natural processes now occurring in those zones. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACT The event of the viewing of the Running Fence, together with the associated media publicity, will have brought much attention (both nation- wide and worldwide) to the Sonoma/Marin dairy-farm landscape. The viewing phase will also bring many visitors (possibly as many as 30,000 on a peak day), some of whom may be attracted by the numerous FOR SALE signs in the area. The low-quality agricultural soil, lack of water and sewer service, high land price, high taxes for non-agricultural-preserve land, and restrictions on building in the coastal zone, will tend to discourage land sales beyond the normal rate of such transactions. Thus growth, beyond current rates, is not a likely outcome of the project. S-6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. APPLICANT The applicant for Christo's Running Fence+is the Running Fence Corporation (formerly the Valley Curtain Corporation)*, the officers of which are: 8 Jeanne-Claude Javacheff, President and Treasurer ® Christo Javacheff, Assistant Secretary ° Scott Hodes, Secretary and Legal Counsel The business activity of the Running Fence Corporation is to foster public appreciation of fine art.** The products of service are works of art.** The artist of the works is Christo Javacheff, known generally as ''Christo"'. . *Incorporated January 8, 1971. **U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, 1974, for Running Fence Corporation. B. | STATEMENT OF APPLICANT'S OBJECTIVES Christo, speaking for the Running Fence Corporation, provides the following: : ; "The Running Fence is a work of art. It can be described in quite simple terms: 24 miles of white, translucent fabric, running over the hills, both emerging from and disappearing into the sea. But the Running Fence project is more complex than this. It exists in time--three years of shared life experience. And it exists in space--a particular space in Northern California. The choice of California for the project was inevitable, born with the project itself. California has the richest variety of texture of anywhere in the United States. Our site was carefully chosen after we explored the coast-line from Mexico to Oregon. The path of the Fence runs from 101, a major highway, and it runs in the vicinity of many small roads from which the Fence can be seen without trespass or traffic hazard. The path includes urban areas and suburban, and cattle ranches, and dairy farms, and the Pacific shore along which so much of California living is done. I would like people to understand that the Running Fence repre- sents not just three years of my life, but three years of team-work, three years of study with engineers, surveyors, botanists, geologists. The Running Fence project also involves politicians and businessmen, supervisors and artists, students and--especially--the local ranchers and landowners. Often their first approach to the project was one of caution, distrust; but in the great majority of cases, the feelings have become enthusiasm and support. This communal energy has become an important part of the Running Fence project. The financing has been generated by the project, and has been raised in its entirety from the sale of drawings and collages. And the financing will, as with projects in the past, be spent on the: project. But what is important is the people, and the land. The Running Fence will bring out the contours of the Sonoma hills and the seashore, the changing of the weather. The Running Fence is a celebration of the landscape. The physical reality of the Running Fence will be a beautiful one. The fabric is a fragile material, like clothing or skin. And, like the structures the nomads built in the desert, it will have the special beauties of impermanence. The fabric is a light-conductor for the sunlight, and it will give shape to the wind. It will go over the hills and into the sea, like a ribbon of laisht:" LA C. LOCATION Sonoma County and Marin County, on the coast of northern California, are two of the nine counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area. Sonoma and Marin Counties are known for their scenic coast, forests, dairy land, and other agricultural areas. Christo's Running Fence has been proposed by the applicant, the Running Fence Corporation, to reach from Meacham Hill*, east of U.S. Highway 101 and north of Petaluma, to Valley Ford in southern Sonoma County; then across Americano Creek*and northern Marin County into the Pacific Ocean--a total of about 24 miles. The currently proposed route is shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. More specifically, the Fence project would be located upon 48 private parcels (under 42 Signatures**) within Sonoma County (about 20 miles of route) in the vicinity of Highway U.S. 101, south and north of Railroad Avenue; Stony Point Road; Meacham Road*; Pepper Road; Walker Road; Petaluma/ Valley Ford Road; and upon eight private parcels (under ten signa- tures**) in Marin County (about four miles of route) in the vicinity of Franklin School Road, Marsh Road, and Estero Road. The original routing of the Marin County portion of the project has been revised; this Environmental Impact Report discusses the new alignment. The routing of the project in Sonoma County, and the properties which it traverses, remain essentially as originally proposed. At the time of preparation of this Draft EIR, the final locations of two segments of the project route in Marin County have not been defined with certainty. These two segments are: (1) The location of the Running Fence over, or around, the Gaver property which has frontage on Estero Road; (2) The western terminus of the Running Fence. The alternate locations of the two segments of the project are shown on Figure 3. These alternatives are discussed at the appropriate places in the EIR text. *The spelling of 'Meacham'' used in the U.S.G.S. topographic (quadrangle) maps (for both Meacham Hill and Meacham Road) has been adopted here. The Road is spelled 'Mecham'' on some road maps and in official Sonoma County records. Strictly speaking, ''Estero'' refers to the estuarine (tidal-influenced) portion of the creek. In this EIR, the portions of the waterways outside the coastal zone (1000 yards upstream of the tidal influence)will be referred to as Americano Creek and San Antonio (Stemple) Creek, while the coastal-zone portions will be referred to as Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio. **Several parcels may be owned by one owner, whereas several owners may own only one parcel; therefore, the number of parcels does not coincide with the number of signatures. Christo, personal communication, August 25, 1975. > Re if oe Meet be h 64%. - Seer a Ae? .s nee abe ae hs - 4 ¥ + ao wii fs Ma Safina: ts ed ole errant PPS, Ge WF dw res PieAni) in ES. 3 PATER AEAeeey 6) 6 gh ens oP rv | pe a ol Litas i oe rhs aie om? al 1a 1°7L8 OR Ov ORS Ot hit inn oa) ite Ng Colusa Yuba Sutter Placer Sacramento Stanislaus Santa Clara Merced oO 20miles “x San en ns FILS A Benito Monterey waras ow FIGURE 1 AREA LOCATION uotbay Aeg 4S “S9SN :8d4Nos NOILV9O1 LOACOUd = ¢@ JuNdI4 ee ule mach Sarre = : JNNOY /~ oo. { uruun [aaa | 5 | > J —Spe | ; | ‘ - —+— ore wa) Se T | (Calin Ts el = 95 a= at as = ih Heustory ‘ ; »\ wea alan yey a] mou i ; ' 2s x i] ) . i: f ke sgonp BONA. S Seas ) = | % he as teal =a) je 5 , | y 4 7 << \ é t A J ' (7c > } ~ \ 1 ee s ‘ - 3 : : = = 5 ae ay = oe a | P ae \ Soe \ ; more : ae NE = (| 7 = oe & of: aq ye A j \ , 7 { & s ( 2 ie > ce, | J 9 ka? ( ee Were =\\— AY 7 vain | “kA / ss y — s , se , * \ ; ~ ” AW ea \ ; tet te ee ——— NS ees 5 cd = =~ = \ SRN ee aS } ee ; pou ce wd. ig re Sn, EAT TEL REM Ee is | ae | a Om or tore vel ’ ae es y « a SS i bd RR wet « i v ' - i . 4 aed Lee | Z xa : oy toa vs MA : Cae y ‘i ‘ a f BH" te‘ ete! wT ee rh ——— =o y'é Si FIGURE 3 ee ee) oa asia a Eee iz ee TENTATIVE LOCATIONS , SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER Ne 5; AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL‘ ——— Proposed location Running Fence (Marin and Sonoma Counties shown in 23 segments) seceee Tentative location subject to permit eames Corrected alignment (Segment 11) ao Boundary of California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ______ Existing property lines 2000° 1S Pc FIGURE 3. PROPOSED runwninG FENCE ROUTE 5 ple - fos -af oS | Gj (CA : \ maroon] RE ay Sy — wi: D. | TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION The Running Fence, a temporary construction (two weeks maximum duration), is proposed to be 18 feet high and more than 24 miles long, with its white nylon panels following an undulating inland path through Sonoma and Marin Counties to the vicinity of,or into, the ocean. Some of the relevant facts relating to this project are as follows. ALIGNMENT The general location of the Fence route was chosen after a survey of the entire Pacific Coast by the artist.* His criteria included artistic considerations, such as visual impact and relation to terrain, as well as the presence of a cross-county road network to provide for visual access. This area was chosen from among several candidate areas. It is the intention of the applicant that the Running Fence be visible from public roads. No stopping or parking area has been proposed as part of the project. However, some of the ranchers involved with the project have indicated an intention to provide parking facilities. It is not the intent of the applicant to encourage maximum visitation to the Running Fenvce,* Alignment of the Running Fence will be, with one possible excep- tion, entirely on private property (with easement agreements)**. The easement upon which the Fence is to be constructed is 40 feet wide. The one possible exception to this alignment principle--an alternative proposal of location within the Estero Road (Marin County) right-of-way, to substitute for the route traversing the Gaver property, on the Fence's way to the coast in Marin County (see Figure 3). The Fence will break at roads, stopping before reaching public right-of-way and continuing again on private property. It will also break at farm roads and animal crossings (but the top cable will continue over private farm roadways at 15-18 feet above ground), and span streams, providing animal access corridors under the Fence. Little space is expected beneath the Fence except in very uneven ground or over ravines. The Fence route has been designed to avoid sensitive or hazardous areas.* Furthermore, field inspection has resulted in modifications in the specific location of the structure, to avoid additionally discovered sensitive areas (i.e., landslides)* (see Figure 35, Seg. 11). *Christo, personal communication, July 28, 1975. **See sample Easement Agreement in Appendix N. **+Field reconnaissance with Mr. Burr Heneman, August 11, 1975. 11 12 MATERIAL The Running Fence panels will consist of a heavy, white nylon fabric [165,000 (square) yards, or 2270 fabric sections, each 18 feet high, and about 68 feet wide], hung from a 9/16 inch steel cable strung between steel poles (2270 poles, each 3% inches in diameter, 160 pounds). The poles (21 feet long), generally 62 feet apart, will be embedded three feet in the ground and braced laterally with guywires and earth (or rock) anchors at approximately right angles to the line of the Fence, using no concrete. The grommeted woven nylon panels will be suspended from the top cable and the upright poles by clips that are designed to release at winds in the neighbor- hood of 60 mph while heavier clips on the bottom cable will hold the panel at ground level. The lower edge of the fabric will be attached to a bottom cable (9/16 inch) anchored to the ground at about twenty foot intervals, and at each pole. Construction details are shown in Figures 4 and 5S. The fabric is white "Nylon 6,6'', manufactured by J.P. Stevens & Company, Inc., New York, from synthetic fiber produced by E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware. The "Textile World Manmade Fiber Chart 1972"' (McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1972) describes the effects of heat upon this fabric as follows: ''Sticks at 445°F. Melts at 480°F to 500°F. Yellows slightly at 300°F when held for five hours". According to the manufacturer, the fabric is self-extinguishing in that it melts away from flame. Although the fabric may remain ignited temporarily, it is consumed relatively slowly, and in the case of the Running Fence might create a fire break rather than a fire hazard.* PHASES** According to the applicant's plans, construction will take about five months, and will commence in April 1976. It will require a num- ber of trips over the easement by the trucks carrying equipment, men, and materials. Viewing of the completed Running Fence will be during two weeks in September 1976.* Removal will be during late September and the month of October 1976. *California State Division of Forestry (Sonoma Ranger Unit) letter of January 21, 1975 to Mr. George Kovatch, Planning Director, Sonoma County. Also, H.E. (Marty) Abell, URS Research Company, personal communication, July 24, 1975. **Burr Heneman, A & H Builders, Project Coordinator for Running Fence. *\fter the Labor Day weekend. dN-4SO1D -ONIMWYC S,LSTLYV 6b SJUNDIS "1 geo p= LS TOs BAY rey Puy | | A100 A" Oey 98 w Sag PTR Te aS 104 0) FFD waasn 10 OAD HIM ru90 [4¥e ) 20 49 ON i Ae oe Alicia dN UTI ACH: Bf (2%/ OF 2°61) : \4 “g Hy 7 HS A Prd ts 97 tet Spay e) PIT mt Blow 4 | fons at np 9 Pit Swim ws Mm ON aap maesieg — Sonny 2s see Loe A \ Se TY? whee) 24 Des #ONO LINES LEO — 296s pees Soe etme tinea ves cere drawer se The. a A A Ah ed) weal wer " jm FIM AE “ad rsd Eee PF es tf 13 CABLE SAG (VERTICAL AT M/DSPAK) JOP CABLE (TC) POLE BOTTOM HOOKS BOTTOM CABLE (BC) \, BOTTOM PIGTAIL is \ BOTTOM ANCHOR SHOE ANGLES LATERAL GUY (16) GUY PIGTAIL : GUY ANCHOR ~—>~<«> FIGURE 5 TYPICAL INTERIOR SPAN: NOMENCLATURE 14 April + April + June + September October Phase I - Distribution of Materials: Poles, guywires, anchors, upper and lower cables, and shoe angles will be distributed starting in April and continuing for several months. Work will begin in the drier areas, generally in the eastern portion of the Fence route, and progress to the wetter areas, which are generally in the coastal portion. Phase II - Anchor-driving and Hole punching: Anchor-driving and hole-punching will begin in April. To protect holes before poles are erected, holes will be covered with two shoe angles (two-foot lengths of steel angle which are to be fastened to the poles at ground level to distribute the weight of the materials on the surface of the ground in order to keep the poles from sinking)* (see Figure 5). Phase III - Placement of Poles and Cables: In June, erection of poles and simultaneous placement of top, bottom, and guy cables will begin. Phase IV - Distribution and Hanging of Fabric Panels: Distribution of fabric panels, folded and enclosed in bags made of the same fabric, will begin about three days before the display period. Hanging of the fabric panels, furled on the poles, will begin two days before the display period. All panels will be unfurled on the first day of the display period. Phase V - Cleanup and Removal: Dismantling will begin at the ocean to minimize distur- bances in that sensitive area. All materials and litter will be removed (except for anchor cables, which will be cut off near ground level, then driven under ground to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the surface of the ground). All holes will be backfilled. This phase will take 4-5 weeks through about October 31, 1976, starting with the *Equipment to be used would include six three-quarter-tor trucks, four of which are equipped with hole-punching and anchor-installing equipment; one flat-bed truck, and several moto-mules. In some areas, much of this work must be done by men without the aid of trucks. 15 16 sensitive areas (coastal area, wet areas, and Meacham Hill/Highway 101 area) and finishing with the less sensitive areas. The reverse sequence will have been used in the construction phase. The viewing phase comes between Phases IV and V, of course. In case of emergency (such as traffic blockage), fabric and cables can be dismantled in one day by crews of the Running Fence Corporation starting with the most-sensitive areas. Each fabric panel can be removed in 2-3 minutes, based on recent testing (at Jameson Trucking, Santa Rosa, August 1975)*. In case of strong winds, the panels will detach from poles at winds of 45 mph and top hooks will detach at winds of 60 mph. In the coastal water portion of the route, panels are designed to fasten by top hooks only (see below). SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION DETAILS** Christo's Running Fence was engineered by URS/The Ken R. White Company under the direction of Ernest C. Harris, Ph.D., Registered Professional Engineer, State of Colorado; Sargis S. Safarian, Regis- tered Civil Engineer, State of California; and Gernot D. Appelt, Registered Civil Engineer, State of California. Engineers represent- ing the engineering firm, Unipolycon, include: James Fuller, John Thomson, and D. Zagoroff. The final design has been developed through several stages of structural design and analysis, laboratory tests and full-scale field tests. This testing and analysis allowed the design to be approved by the artist, the engineers and the contractor (A & H Builders). Evaluation of the design determined not only at what wind speed the system failed but, more importantly, how the system would fail. Thus, the final design incorporates points of controlled weakness to insure ''safe'' failure. In this situation, ''safe'' connotes protection of the environment and protection of the structure. The designed failure mode would simply allow the fabric to disconnect from both the poles and the overhead support cable and to lie on the ground at gusts of slightly above 60 mph. This would significantly reduce the wind resistance to permit the structure to withstand tne 20 psf wind loading required by the Sonoma County Building Code. Fabric and *Mr. Burr Heneman, A & H Builders, telephone communication, August 21, 1975. **This section is based on engineering details provided by the project engineer. (See Appendix N.) and on information provided by the applicant and by the contractor (Personal communication, Mr. Burr Heneman, October 17, 1975). structure would remain intact, allowing the fabric panel to be put back in place to complete the viewing period. Failure at the lateral and upper hooks will prevent overloading of anchors and poles, which could otherwise disrupt the soil. Even if some poles were lost, their strength is less than that of the soils so that they would bend before disrupting the soil. Also, the anchors and guys are the strongest structural elements; thus, anchor withdrawal is extremely unlikely. Each anchor will have been tested to working load when driven. The final structure design for Christo's Running Fence is in principle quite simple. Newly developed equipment will punch out cores of soil about 34 to 4 inches in diameter and 3 feet deep. Steel pipe 34 inches in diameter will be placed 3 feet into the ground to stand 18 feet above grade. Standard spacing of poles will be 62 feet. These poles will be guyed laterally with cables attached to soil anchors driven 36 inches below the surface and tested to working load. A top cable supported on the poles will be adjusted to match the curve designed into the top of each panel. The bottom of the Fence will be secured by a bottom cable attached to the bases of the poles and by soil anchors every 20 feet. Calculated and tested component strength and performance have been verified and/or modified to give the structure the required performance character- istics. For example, free-standing poles were found to sink into the ground under design loads, so shoe angles were added and tested for load-carrying capacity. A simple change in assembly sequence corrected another deficiency; lifting of the top cable occurred under certain wind loading, but placing the lateral guy cable over the top of the top cable provided the required hold down. All of these problems were discovered and corrected during the engineering testing phase. A different design will be used in the ocean segment of the Running Fence. There is no construction within the intertidal itself. In addition, the pole closest to the ocean will be located near the bottom of a grassy slope which ends at a lip approximately 20 feet above the high tide line of the study area. That pole will be situated far enough on the landward side of the lip so that the guy anchors running seaward from the pole will be set in solid ground. These anchors will be set back from the lip so as not to contribute to sloughing. The anchors will be tested to working load. No anchors or anchor cables will be any closer to the inter- tidal zone than the top of the lip. From the top of the last pole (approximately 40 feet above the intertidal) , the top cable (7/8ths inch wire rope) will run seaward approximately 550 feet, where it is attached to the apex of a V-shaped bridle. The legs of the bridle extend seaward another 450 feet to anchors, the type of anchor to be determined by the type of bottom (Danforth 200-H, if the bottom is sand). The bridle is also of 7/8ths inch wire rope. A flotation buoy at the junction of the top cable and bridle will be used to give the top cable the proper sag for display of the fabric panel. The top cable and bridle will be marked with any buoys required by the Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard. During the maximum two-week display period in September, a 300-foot long nylon panel, tapered from a width of 18 feet where it is attached to the first pole at the top of the cliff to a width of about two feet at the seaward end, will be pulled out on the © top cable on blocks. The bottom of this loose- footed panel will be weighted to keep it vertical in normal winds. The bottom of the fabric panel will be under water a maximum of two feet below MLLW* toward the seaward end. Crossing the intertidal zone, the bottom of the fabric panel will be several feet above the water at high tide. In short, the only changes to be made to the subtidal area are 1) the deposition of two sea anchors 1000 feet offshore; 2) the presence of a wire rope through a small portion of the offshore water colum; and 3) the suspension of a nylon panel into the surface waters of the offshore area. No changes are planned for the inter- tidal area itself. The fail-safe features of the ocean segment are summarized by the Engineers as follows:** e "The ocean portion is attached at the top edge only, so that it can withstand 20 psf pressure on structure. e The main water loads will be longitudinal drag on the fabric. The fabric being unrestrained, will 'bunch' next to the cable, thus reducing surface area subject to drag and reducing drag force." Other protective features designed into the project include: e In-place soil strength tests for each anchor. ® Provision for multiple anchors where soil conditions dictate. e Three types of guy and bottom anchors, depending on soil (bottom) materials and condition. *Mean lower low water. **This summary is based on work performed before the ocean engineer- ing work presented in Appendix M. The recommendations of the latest work will supersede the earlier plans. e Longitudinal anchors, where necessary. e Vehicle slope limits and alternate vehicle use methods: winch the vehicles (trucks or moto-mules) down steep slopes, and use hand installation (no vehicles) on particularly sensitive or steep slopes. A biologist and a geologist approved by the respective counties and the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission will provide field Supervision of construction in sensitive areas. Prior to construction, Petaluma Fairgrounds will be rented by Running Fence Corporation for training of crews for hanging and unfurling Fence fabric (where crews will have the advantage of a large area for "dry runs" of Fence installation) and for training of monitors in crowd control by the Sonoma County Sheriff's office and the Sonoma County District Attorney's office.* A bus to be rented by Running Fence Corporation will bring crews to the Fence route in order to avoid inefficiency and additional traffic of individual transportation.* Monitors hired at the expense of Running Fence Corporation will guide visitors away from trespassing on private property. When they are in need of assistance in protecting property from trespassing, the monitors' 2-way communication system with Running Fence communi- cations center can bring the necessary aid from the County Sheriff's office (from either Sonoma or Marin Counties, depending on location of need). Additional assistance from the California Highway Patrol or the Sheriff's offices of Sonoma or Marin Counties may be called in for solving potential Fence-induced traffic problems on public roads. All crews and monitors will be trained in fire fighting techniques by the Division of Forestry.** Other fire-prevention measures will include the following: e Motorcycle monitors will have fire extinguishers. & Smoking by all crews will be restricted to designated safe areas. e All construction trucks will be equipped with fire- fighting tools (two shovels, two McLeods), as well as fire extinguishers. *Burr Heneman, A & H Builders, Telephone Communication, October 13, 1975. **The Division of Forestry can be reimbursed for its fire protection services only if the reimburser is the party directly responsible for the fire. 19 e All construction trucks and monitors will be in 2-way communication with Running Fence communication center. e Running Fence communication center will be equipped with Thomas Bros. maps (used by fire agencies) for ease of communication with fire agencies in the event of fire.* 2 All appropriate fire agencies will be provided with maps of Fence route with Fence segment numbers and locations of gates in ranch fences. 20 “Burr Heneman, A § H Builders, Telephone Communication, October 13, 1975 E. LEGAL HISTORY OF THE PROJECT* The applicant, Running Fence Corporation, applied to Sonoma County in November 1974 for permits to erect the Running Fence over private property (with easement agreements). Although the Zoning Ordinance did not have zoning districts that specifically permitted or prohibited a temporary 18 foot high fence (the authors of the Zoning Ordinance could not be expected to have conceived of such a need), the Running Fence was interpreted to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. A Use Permit was required. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in its official action to require a Use Permit declared that an EIR was not required according to the Board's interpretation of State requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, due to the temporary nature of the Running Fence, and to its apparent lack of environmental impact. ** Subsequently, both the State Lands Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted permits for those portions of the originally proposed project under their jurisdictions (coastal end). In the late spring of 1975, the North Central Coastal Conserva- tion Zone Commission approved the coastal zone portion of the Fence (original Estero de San Antonio routing). The local Commission was then overruled, in June 1975, by the California State Coastal Conserva- tion Zone Commission. A new coastal routing has subsequently been proposed, as noted earlier in this EIR; it terminates about one mile north of Estero de San Antonio, and about the same distance south of Estero Americano. A minimum of the route (less than one mile) is in the coastal zone. The new routing is subject to approval by the Commission. In June 1975, just following the disapproval action by the State Coastal Zone Commission, the earlier action of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in denying the need for an EIR was reversed in Sonoma County Superior Court. Judge Golden of Lake *Much of the written record of the project, used as background material in the preparation of this EIR, is based upon applications to various regulatory agencies during the course of project develop- ment. Only those elements of the project legal history that bear upon discussions in this EIR are included in this summary. **Marin County approved its portion of the project as originally routed, on the same basis. Both counties imposed a series of conditions for environmental protection. 21 22 County ruled in favor of Committee to Stop the Running Fence, etal., who had sued the County, holding that an EIR should have been required. The EIR process was therefore started, and the planned construction of Running Fence postponed from 1975 to 1976. In September 1975, the California District Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court ruling and, thus, the EIR was no longer legally required to complete processing of the Use Permit in Sonoma County. Conditions of the various agencies concerned are to be met by the applicant. The original Sonoma County and Marin County conditions follow. Note that the Marin County conditions were set for a different Fence route than is now proposed. Conditions are, of course, subject to revision during the forthcoming deliberations of Sonoma County and Marin County Commissions and Boards. Consultations by the Sonoma County Planning Department with other responsible agencies are documented in a letter to ESA from that Department. See Appendix B. Resolution 48448 THIS USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That this permit shall expire on November 1, 1975. 2. That the location of the project shall substantially conform to the location map on file with the Planning Department marked, “File 7772, Running Fence Corporation, February 13,1975," and in any case, the project shall only be located on those parcels made a part of the permit application, and the project shall only be conducted in a manner authorized by the written agreements with the owners of said parcels and on file with the Planning Department. 3. That the size, composition and design of elements of the fence project shall- substantially conform to the Construction Details Summary on file with the Planning Department marked, "File 7772, Running Fence Corporation, February 13, 1975;" minor alterations required by other conditions of this permit or to improve the safety of the project are permitted. 4. That the fence panels shall be constructed of white fabric which is fire retardent to the satisfaction of local fire agencies. 5. That all costs of public agencies resulting from this project, other than ordinary services associated with the issuance of required permits, shall be borne by the applicant; these costs shall include, but not be limited to, special or emergency police or fire service, and enforcement of the conditions of this permit. 6. That prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a bond in the minimum amount of $150,000 shall be posted to insure compliance with the conditions of this permit to correct damages and for compensation to any property affected by this project or to the County of Sonoma or other public agencies; said bond shall be acceptable to the County Counsel. 7. That prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall furnish the County of Sonoma with evidence that an insurance policy has been obtained providing combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 and naming the County of Sonoma as additional insured, said insurance policy shall be acceptable to County Counsel. ~ 8. That a qual-ified biologist shall be retained by the County at applicant's expense, to oversee construction and removal of the project to insure that the project will be constructed in a manner which mitigates adverse impact on wildlife, plant life, riparian zones and marshes; the Planning Director may, prior to issuance of Building Permits, require a cash deposit in an amount sufficient to reimburse the County for anticipated costs of the biologist's services. 9. That construction within or over public rights-of-way shall be subject to review by the issuance of Encroachment Permits by the County Public Works Department or other applicable agency. 10. That the project shall not cause or contribute to blockage of any public or private rights-of-way except as may be allowed by written authorization of the affected owners or agencies. 11. That all applicable County Building Permits shall be obtained prior to the commencement of work. 12. That all other applicable permits (local, State and Federal) shall be obtained and resultant conditions met and copies of said permits shall be placed on file with the Sonoma County Planning Department prior to the issuance of County Building Permits. 13. That fabric fence panels shall not be erected or displayed without written authorization of the Planning Director; and that prior to issuance of said authorization, the applicant shall consult with the following agencies for the safe conduct of the display period: 23 24 Resolution 48448 California Highway Patrol County Sheriffs Department California Division of Forestry Cotati Fire Protection District Penngrove Fire Protection District California Department of Fish & Game County Public Health Department 14. That the display period of the project shall be limited to a period of fourteen (14) days commencing with the erection of the first fabric panel; and that at the end of said display period, the applicant shall immediately commence removal of the project and restoration of affected properties substantially to their original condition, including removal of roadside litter; and in any case, said removal and restoration shall be completed prior to the expiration of this permit. 15. That the fabric fence panels shall be removed immediately upon request of the California Highway Patrol, if necessary to maintain safe traffic movement. 16. That at least 80 persons trained in crowd and traffic control, fire prevention, and citizen and property rights shall be stationed along the project route during the fabric display period. 17. That the portion of the project route within 1000 feet of U. S. 101 Freeway, and the portion within Estero Americano shall be constructed last and removed first following the display period. 18. That this permit shall be subject to revocation or modification by the Board of Zoning Adjustments if: (a) the Board finds that there has been noncompliance with any of the foregoing conditions or (b) the Board finds that the use for which this permit is hereby granted is so exercised as to be substantially detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood of the use. Any such revocation shall be preceded by a public hearing noticed and heard pursuant to Section 26.225 of the Sonoma County Code. MARIN COUNTY CONDITIONS Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. _ Morin County Code $13.12. All activities associated with the running fence shill be completed os per the opplicotion for Design Review, unless stipulated otherwise in the following conditions. F Applicont shall submit to the County of Msrin a report pressed by a registered engincer or other person (accep*cole to the Planning Diss ~ ©) with demonstrated expertise in the arco of marine enginecring cetoiling iy «s:ign end tolerance of the running fence structure (to te placed in the tidelers) to withstand extreme bottom fluctuations, tidol velocities, debris pileup, etc. “The County of Marin stoff shall have the right to pass over the properties on which the sunning fence is located for inspection, supervision, and other related ond reasonable octivities. Motion picture operations, if performed from 3 County maintained road, and If performed by the applicant or his delegates, shall require a commercial filming permit os per County Code $5.36, and on encroochment permit per Jonuary 20, 1975 licm 10 - Poge 2 STAFF REPORT i 26 8. 10. VW. 12. 13. County maintained roads shell, in olf coses, be hen’ wen co throug traffic. The C.H.P., of other Ganropriate enforcement onencics, shall be requested by the cyplicent to monitor the operations and adjust ony offending trasfic situations. During con:truction, materials may be placed along the roodzide of ; County maintained roads, only as permiticd by on encroachment permit Issued by the County Department of Public Works. The fence, upon approoching a County maintained roed, sholl terminate ot the right-of-way line. INo quy lines, cverhecd or otherwise, within the right-of-way sholl be permitted. A wildlife expert (accepteble to applicant end the Planning Director) shall supervise the siting, instollation, end remevat of the renning fence (posts D ond fobric) on parcels \O9-G5-21, 100-0'0-22, 105-0-20-2%4 er-t 102-020-26 (adjacent to Estero Scn Anionio and Estero Americonc) to ensure: a. Provision for adequate and appropriate openings for wildlife seeking ‘access to the woterways. : b. That the instollation and removal cf posts and fabric and vehiculer operation do not disture cny endangered plent species or obvious wild- life "resting" sites (nest, pad, etc.) The precise location of the running fence in the following locations shall be subject to the asprovel of County stoff, os delermined by on-site field investigation and technical consultation: ‘a. From the 200 foot clevecticn west to the termination of the running fence on the Rancho Compcdres de San Antonio aad adjacent tidelands. b. All stream (intermittan! o: perennial) crossings. ‘¢. Within the conservation zone adjacent fo Estero Americano County staff, upon field inspection prior to installation «f cc:ts hes the right to require no operalions (pasts or fence) within erviccnmeatally: ccns* tive oreas, such as the strecm conservation zone.u; Sitzro Anericuns or ether stream crossings. ; i The mutuolly occeptoble wildlife exoert shall have tre authority to require openings in the fence to enable wildlife access to Estero San Antonio. The vehicles utilized cross-country (off estebtishod fire ar ranch roads) shell be os specified in the azplication (equipped with wide, flotation type tires); in additign, soid vehicles shall be equipped with fire suporession equizment os requircd by the Marin County Fire Chief aad all personnel shall be instructed in the operation of the equipment. Applicant's representative(s) shall consult with the Marin County Fire Chief tegording the method of emercency pesscus “throval" the fence in the-event of wild fire; if necesscry, the apoticant shall provide the Marin County Fire Deportinent with oppropriate tools to cut the lower ccble or othenvide provide topid passage "through" the fence. (Tools may be required for the fire trucks ot Pt. Reyes, Hicks Valley, Tomales as well cs deputys' vehicles at these locations. Certification shall be provided to insure that the fobric utilized will not sustoin fire. -Janvary 20, 1975 Item 10 - Page 3 STAFF REPORT 14, Na vegetatien tho!l be removed other than orasses or forbs which grow In the imnicdiote location of anchors, posts, etc. : . Ww 18 inches of cleorance obove grede shall be maintained for the length of the fence with the only exceptions at tie-downs, where the lower edge may be drown toward the ground. 16. All poles, cables, weights and other remnants of the project (excepting onchors, see “17) slicll be removed from the running fence.route; siock- iling may occur on indivicucl rencn compounds cs determined by individual heer gee: All holes shell be tackfilled cs specified in the opplicotion, and the naturel terrain shell be ieft in such a condition as to provide no nozard to livestock, wildlife, persons or vehicles. 17. Soil anchors may remain in plece, provided thot such will not result in metol . . . y p . P t . projections in the uppermos? 12 inches of ine soil, 18. = In order to moximize the potentiol for visibility for wildlife, the fence shall be disployed during the crightest phoses of the moon; such occurs between ploy : brig P September 12 and 22, 1975. 19. = The timetoble for display clean-up, removol and restoration sha!i be as follows: Doys 1 = 14: Disploy . Doys YW - 17: Fabric Removal x Days 15 - 17: complete removal within ine tidelunds off Compadres de Son Antonio Doys 15 - 50+: pole, guyline, etc. removal backfill The County of Morin sholl retain the righ! to supervise removal and cloan-vp operviions. if ine ridvicnds seamenr is no1 compiciea Dy Ine 16In Gay fotiowing Ihe conmencenient of dispiuy, Me County of Nuria suai wuve tre tight to secure services tc remove all materials from the tidelands, with the cost of such services to be deducted directly from the cesh bond heid by the County of IMerin. i S In the event thot cll clean-up operations ore not completed by November 1, 1975, staff of the County of Metin may authorize dey-to-day continuation of work, os necessary; ground conaitions (as afiectad by roinfoli) witl be consicered in the time extensions. If werrented by ecrly rainiall or other unforseen event, the County of Marin may authorize continuation of cleanup ct a Icter dite, not to commence later then Mey 1, 1976. Applicant shall file with the County of Marin a notice of completion of clean-up and restoration, The County of Marin sholl retcin the right to inspect affected lenus within 21 days of this notice and determine wnetiner or not all conditions nave bcen met. Discrencncy between applicant's stctement of completion and tAsrin County staff findings sholl be raviewed by the Environmental Protection Cemmittee for determination. Standard appeal procedures will be cppliccble. ‘20, — Bonding shall be required in the amount of $109,C00, $25,009 of which shell be “in the form of a cash bond, on deposit with the County of Mazin or deznository acceptable to the County of Marin and applicant. Said cash deposi shall be ovailable for the following: 0. In the event of unsutisfectory completion of the conditions in "19" chove, where lack of action constitutes o hazard to persons or the environment In the opinion of the Planning Director, the County of Morin shall have the right 10 secure services tocchieve campletion of said conditions, the cost of such services to be deducted from the cash deposit availeble on an Immediate basis. 4 . b. Direct cost of county supervision shall be cu.argesi to applicent, to b> deducted from the cash deposit. Said supervision snall be chorqed ar the 27 hourly rate of the staff person assiqned the responsibility, and shall not exceed ten days (80 hours) and appropriate mileace, motor pool charges without authorization by the Planaing Yirector cna applicant. STAFF REPORT Jonvey 20. 1978 Item } tue t P ~ 28 aie Applicant shall make availcble to the County of Mere evidence of tabilily, Insuronze. Such shall indemnify and hold ha rless 3 the Coxaty of Mentin egouinst ony claim for dcmeces, costs, attorneys’ fens ne op penves 62d Gay judgement or decree which “might be renucred cguiast ihe County of Marin on account of any event or BlGimn which might be related to the instollotion, display, or removal of the running fence intentional or accicenicl. All ogreements required shall be opps roved prior to commencement. cof work by the County Counsel of the County of iMarin. At the hearing before the Planning Commission, the Staff of the Planning Department and Per eae agreed to modifications EOpconduezons LS and 20) .uwhach ace attached hereto. The conditions as modificd were the subject of the ETounsng a5) Commiss HOM Vowel Adequate clearance above grade shall be provided at suitable intervals along the length of the Fence to provide for passage of field mammals, such provision of clearance to be subject to coe. of the County Sicaune. : 20) Bonding shall be required in the amount of $50,000, S2.0;,000 Of iach shall be aaletter of credit posted with a depository acceptable to the County of Marin and applicant. Said deposit shall be available for the following: ae. ‘In the event of unsatisfactory completion of the cond tions an. TEI" above, wilrere lack of action constitutes a hazard to persons or the environment in the opinion of the Planning Director, the County of Marin shall have the right to secure services to achicve completion of said conditions, the cost o£ such services to be deducted from the letter of ered. \ _Direet cost of County supervision shall be. charged to applicant, to be deducted from the letter of credit. Said supervision shall be charged at the hourly rate of the staff person assigned the responsibility, and shall not exceed ten days (80 hours) an appropriate mileage/motor pool charges without authorization by, the Planning Dilxector and ‘applicant. OFFICE OF TRE COUNTY CLERK MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAN RAFAEL , CALIFORNIA : Ne ETE FO: DATE: May \ EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1975 CONDITION ON RUNNING FENCE PROJECT Pursuant to the recommendation of Supervisor Giacomini, M/s Roumiguiere-Price, to arify the condition regarding bio-kinetic reclamation, which is part of the Board's approval | February 4, 1975, of the Running Fence Project, es follows: "{n the event the Running Fence Project obtains al] necesSary approvals and is erected, and if the farmers of West Marin enter into a contract for bio-kinetic reclamation, which will call for the test of bio-kinetic manure recycling equipment, and under which thecontractorfor such equipment would receive a fee upon certifi-— cation by appropriate independent engineers that the equipment successfully meets appropriate performance specifications, then the applicant (Mr. Christo and his Organization) will subsidize any fee to be paid by such farmers in an amoun* not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000)."! YES ; ALL bia. So ATTEST: GEO.H.GNOSS Clerk 30 F. APPROACH TO THE EIR Its size, transitory nature and essentially non-utilitarian purpose make Christo's Running Fence one of the most unusual and challenging projects ever to be considered in terms of potential impacts on the environment. Clearly, the subjective interpretation and analysis of the Running Fence is beyond the purview of the preparers of an environmental impact report- ESA has carefully avoided judging Running Fence as an art object. This investigation has, therefore, addressed only the primary and secondary environmental effects associated with the construction, viewing, and removal of the Fence as a part of the total process. In isolating the physical Fence from the whole process, this distinction, while not consonant with the artist's objectives as we understand them, is nevertheless necessary for our present purposes. In this work program, we have: oO Organized data provided by the Running Fence Corporation and County of Sonoma, existing literature, public and public-agency attitudes, and other consultants. oO Supplemented existing information and acquired additional data where appropriate. oO Identified possible areas of concern not previously noted. oO Completed the impact analysis and remaining report sections as specified in the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended through March 1975. The analysis has covered setting, impact, and mitigation for each of the three on-site stages of Running Fence: (1) construction, (2) viewing, and (3) removal. ET’. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT, MITIGATION SOC IAL/ECONOMIC 1. ARCHAEOLOGY* Setting In the vicinity of the Running Fence route, no known archaeo- logical sites or resources appeared in the records studied: California Department of Parks and Recreation at Sacramento, Sonoma State Univer- sity at Rohnert Park, and California State University at San Francisco. No indications of archaeological resources were observed or discovered during visual surface reconnaissance efforts at locations where pre- historic sites would be most likely to occur. Impact The Running Fence on its proposed route will have no significant impacts upon archaeological resources, so far as can be determined by existing data. Since they include no excavation, construction activities are not likely to uncover information about (exposed) archaeological sites. By the same token, such activities are not likely to damage such sites if present along the route. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological artifacts are observed in any area during the construction phase, the area should be imme- diately vacated until clearance or mitigation measures are approved by an archaeologist representing the governing agency. Mitigation No mitigation is required, unless artifacts, or other evidence, are discovered. The permits authorizing the project should contain conditions or safeguards, such as a performance bond, to assure that potential archaeological sites are protected from damage or destruction. *See Appendix L for report of Archaeological Consulting and Research Service, Inc. Si 32 2. LAND USE Setting The proposed Running Fence route passes through predominantly large open agricultural, dairy, and grazing properties. In addition, the route passes through clusters of rural residential use near Railroad Avenue, Meacham Road, and the town of Valley Ford; and the route also passes near the community of Bloomfield--all in Sonoma County. Bloomfield consists of an elementary school, a tavern, and residences. Valley Ford (population 126) consists of a market, a bank, a post office, a sandwich shop, a repair garage, a service station, a small hotel, a restaurant, a realtor's office, and an office of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. The Marin County portion of the route passes through dairy and grazing properties. Zoning along the route within Sonoma County is predominantly Agricultural, Exclusive Agricultural or Unclassified, but also includes an area of Light Industrial zoning on Stony Point Road, and the Rural- Residential-zoned Happy Acres, a subdivision off Meacham Road. Zoning in the Marin County portion is A-60, Agricultural Zone (60 acres minimum) .* Sonoma County has traditionally been an agricultural county. The amenities of agriculture and the proximity to Bay Area centers have attracted people to the County. Population growth and increasing urbanization in the County over the last 20 years have reduced overall agricultural potential.** The City of Petaluma tripled in population between 1950 and 1972, and now has a ''slow-growth" housing plan limit- ing new housing units to a maximum of 500 a year; this policy is currently being tested in the courts. Sonoma County has a policy of compact growth. Agriculture in the County is considered vital to the preservation of urban/rural diversity.** Impact The Running Fence, a temporary structure, will have no sub- stantial practical impacts on current land uses along its route.+ However, it will be potentially a partial barrier to movement of stock and wildlife; and when in proximity to the viewer, a barrier to view of the landscape, during the two weeks (maximum) it is to *Telephone Communication, Kathleen Ohlson, Marin County Planning Department, August 19, 1975. _ **Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin--Summary Composite Alterna- tives, March 14, 1975. : +Potential congestion along public rights of way is considered in Traffic/Circulation/Parking Section. It is not conventionally considered to be a Land Use impact in EIR's. be in place in its completed state with nylon panels in place--the viewing phase (two weeks of September 1976). During the construction phase (starting in April 1976) and during the removal phase (October 1976) the Running Fence will not be a visual barrier, due to the absence of the nylon panels. The lower cable, lying on the ground, is not likely to be a barrier to movement. Movement on public rights of way will not be obstructed by the Fence per se during any phase. Other than the visual barrier and partial movement barrier, the Fence will not interfere with the existing land uses of the area of the Fence route--mainly grazing. In the community of Valley Ford, the Fence route, with construction restricted to private property only, will cross Petaluma/Vallev Ford Road, possibly bringing increased temporary economic activity to Valley Ford, but not otherwise creating impacts on land uses in Valley Ford. The Running Fence will be viewed from Bloomfield, but will not be close enough to obstruct land uses within the community. The Fence will pass within view of homes in the Happy Acres subdivision,* travelers on Freeway 101 (north of Petaluma), and rural residents near Railroad Avenue and Meacham Hill. The Fence itself will not obstruct use and movement along its route, although viewer traffic at peak times on a weekend day during the viewing phase may obstruct use and movement (see Traffic/Circulation/ Parking Section). Many of the parcels within the Running Fence route that are under easement agreements with the applicant are also under Agricul- tural-Preserve Contract with Sonoma County. An Agricultural-Preserve Contract limits a landowner's use of his land to agricultural use or open space in exchange for reduced assessed valuation of the property (and thus reduced taxes) while the land is under contract (usually a set time period such as ten years). RS the Running Fence is not a commercial venture for which direct profit** would be earned (i.e., from admission charges), the Running Fence, the landowner easement agreements with the ~*See Appendix for one resident's views on land-use impacts (Appendix N, letter from Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Raymond to Sonoma County Planning Department. ) **According to the applicant, indirect income will be earned by the Running Fence Corporation in the form of sales of art works created in conjunction with the project (but sold elsewhere). The applicant attests that to date, such income has been applied to the costs of other large-scale art projects of the corporation. (Jeanne-Claude 33 Javacheff, personal communication, July 28, 1975.) 34 Running Fence Corporation, and the Agricultural-Preserve Contracts with Sonoma County do not appear to be in conflict. Therefore, the Running Fence can be considered not incompatible with agricultural or open-space use. Mitigation See Section on Traffic/Circulation/Parking. An ultimate mitigation measure for obstruction uf use and move- ment due to viewers, after other suggested solutions have been applied, is to take down the Fence--even before scheduled removal. This would be done, by prior agreement, upon proper signal* under necessary conditions. Upon removal of the Fence, existing land uses and movement will continue as before. *To be given by Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California Highway Patrol, Santa Rosa Area Office. 3. POPULATION AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS* Setting Most of the length of the proposed Running Fence project lies within Sonoma County, passing near the towns and communities of Penngrove, Cotati, Two Rock, and Bloomfield, and through Valley Ford. The most westerly section of the Fence cuts across a small corner of northwestern Marin County, terminating in Bodega Bay between the Estero Americano and the Estero de San Antonio. The portions of both counties which it traverses are sparsely populated and rural, consist- ing forthe most part of dairy ranches and small villages. In this section of the report, the growth characteristics of the county populations and the relative changes in character will be discussed. The January 1974 population of Sonoma County was 235,100. The annual growth rate of the County population since 1940 has been constantly on the decline: between 1940 and 1950, it was 5.0 percent; between 1950 and 1960, 4.3 percent; between 1960 and 1970, 3.9 percent; and between 1970 and 1973, 3.7 percent. The source of the population has been recorded since 1960 and categorized either as in-migration or as a natural increase due to the birth rate's exceeding the death rate. The statistics show that in-migration is responsible for between 68 and 94 percent of the increase. Although there is not a steadily increasing trend in the proportion of in-migrants to total population increase, the figures show that most recently in 1973 and 1974, in-migration was responsible for 93 and 90 percent, repectively, of the County population increase. Sonoma County is considering two alternatives in county planning which would affect population growth, density, and distribution. Under Alternative One, the countywide population projection for the year 2000 would be 478,000, the growth rate averaging slightly over four percent annually. Alternative Two would involve some growth restriction: the county population in the year 2000 would be substan- tially lower--378,000, corresponding to a growth rate averaging 2.48 percent annually. The County also anticipates a decrease in the rural population and an increase in urban center development, a continuation of a trend that started about ten years ago. It is anticipated, in addition, that the housing market would shift towards multi-family construction and mobile homes, although single-family homes still would occupy a portion of the housing demand. A small part (less than 20 percent) of the proposed Running Fence route traverses a corner of Marin County as it approaches *This section is based on information from the Sonoma County Data File, a recent publication of the Sonoma County Economic Development Board. 35 36 the coast. It does not pass close to any established community in Marin County. Marin County population statistics* show that Marin County experienced a paris high rate of growth between 1960 and 1970, averaging 4.03 percent annually. Over that period of time, the growth in the urban areas averaged 4.77 percent annually while the rural area populations decreased at a rate of 1.25 percent annually. Since 1970, the rate of population growth has been rapidly reduced. The County has experienced a total increase of approximately 4.7 per- cent since 1970, or an annual rate of approximately one percent. The current Countywide population is 216, S002. It was estimated that the 1972-73 Marin County population gain was 3,300 persons, of which 24.5 percent was a natural increase due to the birth rate's exceeding the death rate and 75.5 percent of the increase was due to the in-migration of population. Impact a) Construction Phase. The construction phase of the Running Fence project would not have any significant impacts on the population or community charac- teristics of the area, since the construction team (poles and cables) is small, and the panel-hanging team would be working for only one or two days during this phase. b) Viewing Phase. It is assumed that people would visit this area to view the Fence, arriving from all parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, the State of California, and beyond. This would result in a temporary increase in population in the northern part of Marin County and the southern part of Sonoma County. Many of those who would come to visit the Fence would be new to this area. The exposure of a significant number of persons to this region could instigate a slight increase in the number of people interested in living in or developing more housing in this area. This could lead to an ultimate increase in the population which, however, could not be considered significant in comparison to substantial development pressures which already exist (see Economic Setting Section) . *Marin County Planning Department, September 1974, Marin County Statistical Abstract. **Ray Ahearn, Marin County Planning Department, July 23, 1975. c) Removal Phase. Upon removal of the Running Fence, the population of the area would return to its normal number. No significant impacts on the population or community characteristics would be incurred by this action. Mitigation Widespread publicizing of the event would encourage signifi- cant crowding in the area. The temporary increase in population in the area of the Fence could thus be mitigated by control and limitation of publicity. Effective dissemination of information concerning the time available for viewing and the many different viewpoints and routes available might reduce potential crowding. 37 38 4. COMMUNITY ATTITUDES This section has been based on community attitudes already expressed at the time of writing. Additional attitudes may be expressed during the public hearing process, and may be incorporated into the Final EIR, an addendum to the Draft EIR. Summary This project is unique with respect to the variety and quantity of community attitudes and public agency viewpoints that have been articulated, assembled, and made available prior to actual initiation of work on the EIR. Community attitudes may vary according to the meaning of "community"’, which may refer to (1) local dairy land owners, (2) conservationists, (3) agencies, (4) Bay Area residents, or (5) art experts and critics. The attitudes of some of the local dairy landowners seem to be that a landowner should be able to do what he wants with his land with a minimm of interference.* Conservationists, on the other hand, want to protect the natural environment, regardless of owner- ship. Agencies are required to carry out the law, as they interpret it, in the public interest. Bay Area residents travel throughout the Bay Area region for recreation and participation. Most of the artists, art experts, or critics who have volunteered their comments want a known artist to be able to complete his or her art work.** Specific Information Over 60 dairy land owners (in Sonoma and Marin Counties) favor the proposed Running Fence idea; theirsupport is documented by their easement agreements with the applicant for use of their land. Some conservationists opposed the original proposal for the con- struction of Running Fence for fear of environmental damage from construc- tion and from trespassing by viewing visitors, and suspicion of the pro- ject's being an "invention to make money" (Findley, 1975) .+ Although the North Central Coast Regional Commission of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission approved Christo's Running Fence "with (environmental) safeguards deemed adequate," the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission itself denied approval within the Commission's area of jurisdiction, partly on the basis of a conservationist's written appeal.+tt *Personal communication with various dairy landowners on August 3, 1975 and August 10, 1975. **See sample letters in Appendix. (Note: Appendix letters have been chosen to demonstrate various viewpoints; no attempt has been made to indicate the frequency of occurrence of any viewpoint. +See section on Economics Impact. ++Margaret Azevedo, Chairman, North Central Coast Regional Commission, letter to Dr. Joel Hedgpeth, June 26, 1975. See also Section on Project Permit Process above. The legal history of the project, reflecting in part other community attitudes, has been summarized in Section I.E. above. One Bay Area community, Belvedere, in southern Marin County, stated its support of Running Fence, but did not specify its reasons. * Art experts and critics, in written statements, have declared Christo as ''serious', "sincere", and ''a significant and respected creative artist''.** Some local artists disagree with this assess- ment .** ¥Letter from Mayor David Bordon to Melvin Lane, Chairman, Coastal Commission, June 11, 1975. **See Appendix N for copies of communications. 39 40 S. COMMUNITY SERVICES Setting The proposed Fence route crosses unincorporated land in both Sonoma and Marin Counties which is served by a number of public agencies. a) Education Services. The students of Sonoma County who live in these rural areas are bused to various schools including those under the jurisdiction of the county Superintendent of Schools (in Cotati and Petaluma); Marin students are bused to schools of the Shoreline Unified School District. The large fleet of buses which serves these schools delivers the stu- dents to school between 7:30 and 9:00 AM and then returns most students to their homes between 2:00 and 4:00 PM. Kindergarten students are returned home between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM. School usually opens early in September--after Labor Day. b) Water Supply. Water is supplied to the homes in Petaluma and Cotati from the Russian River Aqueduct, and to the outlying areas by wells on indi- vidual properties. c) Liquid Waste Treatment. Most of the homes in the unincorporated rural areas do not connect to sewage lines; they use septic tank systems to treat liquid waste. The areas around Petaluma and Cotati have sewers; the latter city is served by the Rohnert Park Sewage Treatment Plant. d) Solid Waste Removal. Several sanitation companies provide solid waste pickup for the area. e) Fire Protection. There is a fire department in Petaluma and one in Cotati; both have small service areas in comparison to the total area along the Fence route. Penngrove also has a fire department. Bloomfield, Valley Ford, and Two Rock have volunteer fire departments. The rural unincorporated area is served by the fire protection service of the California State Division of Forestry, which has three stations in the region--one in Petaluma, one on Graton Road near Occidental, and its headquarters in Santa Rosa. From June through the middle-to-end of October is the ''fire season'' in Sonoma County. Up-to-date 1975 records for all State- responsibility fires (those responded to by the State Division of Forestry) in Sonoma County (5-year annual average) for the two dryest months (those of highest fire frequency), August and September, show: * Date (5-year annual average) Number of Fires August 1-10 195 August 11-20 216 August 21-31 239 September 1-10 260 September 11-20 ono September 21-30 294 In contrast to these figures are the figures for April,* as an example, with its spring rain: Date (S-year annual average) Number of Fires April 1-10 3 April 11-21 3 April 21-30 5 *Mr. Ron Matiali, State Division of Forestry, Sonoma Office, October 16, 1975. 4] 42 f) Police Protection. During the period that the Fence would be in place, the Sonoma and the Marin County Sheriff's Departments would be responsible for events taking place on the properties along the Fence route; the California Highway Patrol would be concerned with maintenance of traffic flow on all roads in the vicinity. The California Highway Patrol would be assisted by county Sheriff's Departments when necessary.* g) Emergency Medical Service. Emergency ambulance service is available from Community Hospital in Santa Rosa and from Hillcrest Hospital Annex in Petaluma. They charge MediCal rates for the service but have a very limited number of ambulances. Outlying areas and other hospitals rely on private ambulance companies to provide service. There are numerous companies providing this service; they operate out of Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Guerneville, Sonoma, and Cotati. h) Recreation Areas. For a map of major recreation areas in the area, see Figure J-2 (Appendix J). Impacts The construction, viewing, and removal of the Running Fence would require the cooperation of the various safety-related public agencies. In anticipation of a number of potential safely problems, the applicant, the Running Fence Corporation, has proposed (or accepted in prior agreements) a number of precautions as conditions to erection of the Fence; these are described in Project Description and in the Mitigation Measures accompanying this section (Community Services) of the report. Impacts described in the following represent the "unmitigated" potential situations. a) Education Services. i. Construction Phase: No impacts. ii. Viewing Phase: As this event holds the potential for causing traffic congestion on the rural roads in this-area, it is possible that the school buses, bearing children to and from schools, would be delayed or prevented from keeping their schedules. If such a disruption so affected the students in the area, it would consti- tute a significant temporary impact on the area educational system. 111. Removal Phase: No impacts. *Lt. Robert Greer, CHP Santa Rosa Area Office, October 17, 1975. b) Water Supply. i. Construction Phase: As a safety precaution for fighting small fires, two five-gallon back-pack, water-filled fire extinguishers would be mounted on the construction and monitoring vehicles. As there would be six monitoring trucks, only about 100 to 300 gallons would be available/used for this purpose. Construction workers would require a minimal amount of drinking water. ii. Viewing Phase: On a peak day, visitors would use less than 100,000 gallons of the area's water; this cannot be considered a Significant impact, in view of the temporary nature of the project. iii. Removal Phase: No significant impact; the removal phase would last less than two days. c) Liquid Waste Treatment. i. Construction Phase: Those who would be working on erection of the Fence would use facilities on the various properties involved. The small number of workers involved would result in no adverse effect on the community service agencies. ii. Viewing Phase: The people who would be traveling through the area to view the Fence would be using public toilet facilties in service stations and restaurants in Petaluma and other sizeable communities along Highway 101, and to a lesser extent, along Highway 1. An estimated crowd of 15,000 to 30,000 on a peak day would generate between 45,000 and 90,000 gallons of liquid waste. It is not anticipated that any adverse impact would affect the involved community service agencies. iii. Removal Phase: See Construction Phase impact discussion above. d) Solid Waste Removal. i. Construction Phase: It is unlikely that a significant amount of solid waste would be generated during the process of erect- ing the Fence. It is likely that a total of 2.5 cubic feet of solid wastes would be produced each day by the workers themselves. Fabric panels will arrive in wrappings of the same fabric, which will be given to farmers and landowners. 43 44 ii. Viewing Phase: It is expected that the people attracted during the viewing phase will generate a substantial amount of solid waste. On a peak day, 1,050 to 2,100 cubic feet (about 40 to 80 cubic yards) of solid wastes could be disposed of in the area. It is possible that a significant fraction of this will be litter along the route, confined to public roadways as public viewing from private properties will not be allowed. iii. Removal Phase: See Construction Phase above. The Fence materials themselves will be delivered to the landowners or disposed of as surplus materials (to the trade). e) Fire Protection. i. Construction Phase: The construction phase will con- tinue through August and into September, the period of the highest frequency of fires. The use of a motor-driven vehicle on the dry grassland area creates a potential for fire. The Fence itself is made of nylon, which is not very flammable (see Technical Description Section). Mitigation measures are planned for fire-protection purposes. The responsibility for handling a fire would rest on the fire depart- ment serving the area in which the fire occurred (see Setting). The cost of the work done by the fire department for any emergency related to construction would be reimbursed by the Running Fence Corporation. ii. Viewing Phase: Running Fence is to be viewed during two weeks in the month of September, the month with the highest fre- quency of State-responsibility fires. The increase in number of persons and vehicles in this area, during the season when the grass is dry and the fire danger generally is high, compounds the fire danger and increases the chance that fire departments would be called upon. iii. Removal Phase: Removal will begin in September, the month of the highest frequency of fires. See Construction Phase discussion above. f) Police Protection. 1. Construction Phase: The applicant states that such control would be exercised over the construction phase under present plans that it is unlikely that the police would be required to perform any special duties. There is a minimal probability of any needed policing, given the nature of the activity. ii. Viewing Phase: The Running Fence Corporation has planned for its own monitoring of the event (see Mitigation Measures) ; however, in the event of a major problem, the Sheriff's Departments of both Marin and Sonoma Counties would have the responsibility to lend aid. The California Highway Patrol would be responsible for maintenance of the traffic flow. Any cost of effort spent related to this event would be paid for by the Running Fence Corporation. iii. Removal Phase: See Construction Phase above. g) Emergency Medical Service. The number of persons who would visit the area to view the Fence would increase the probability of an incident which would require emergency medical services. The number of autos on the road could inhibit swift service by emergency vehicles (see Traffic/Cir- culation/Parking Section). Running Fence Corporation plans to provide for the stationing of an ambulance in the Valley Ford area at such times and location as will be determined by further consul- tation with public safety authorities. h) Recreation Areas. It is expected that many people visiting the area to view the Fence would make their visit a vacation. It is probable that the parks in the region--particularly those in the coastal areas-- could be visited by large numbers of people during the period that the Fence is in place. Mitigation a) Education Services. Potential for severe traffic congestion and possible delay of school buses would be mitigated to some degree by the attempt to maintain a steady traffic flow by the planned placement of uniformed off-duty Sheriffs' deputies (paid for by the applicant) along the roadway ; their job would be to control traffic. This measure is a part of the project plan (see Traffic/Circulation Section also). b) Water Supply. The monitors would be provided with drinking water from six trucks carrying containers of water, according to plans of the Running Fence Corporation. c) Liquid Waste. The Running Fence Corporation could set up chemical toilets for use by the monitors which would mean that they would not use ranchers' or public toilet facilities. To avoid crowding of the public restrooms, chemical toilets could be set up in rest stop or viewing areas on private property to accommodate the visitors. This is not part of the present plan. 45 46 d) Solid Waste. In order to keep litter to a minimum, it is suggested that plans be changed to include placement of waste containers at stopping points along the roadway; also, the removal phase of the Fence could include roadside clean-up by the monitors. The Sonoma County condi- tions call for removal of litter by the applicant. The conditions include posting of a $150,000 bond by the applicant ''...to insure compliance with the conditions of this permit...". e) Fire Protection. Several measures have been included in the Running Fence Corporation's plans as safety precautions against fire:* e Stationing of monitors along the roadway where the Fence nears the road to discourage people from stopping and leaving their cars to examine the Fence; this would keep people off dry grassland; e Equipping each of six monitoring trucks with one ABC fire extinguisher , two water fire extinguishers and fire-fighting tools; e Having the 100 Fence monitors trained in crowd control and method of control of small grass fires; @ Equipping the trucks used for erection of the Fence with spark arresters and skid plates to reduce the potential of grass- fire caused by these vehicles; e Assuming total financial responsibility for fire prevention actions related to this event. In addition, farmers along the route have offered to make avail- able their spray rigs filled with liquid. Also, visitors should be requested to refrain from smoking while in the vicinity of Running Fence, by means of signing and other communication. f) Police Protection. ___ The plans of the Running Fence Corporation include the following mitigation measures: e Stationing monitors along the Fence where it intersects or approaches the roadway to keep viewers from trespassing on private property to inspect the Fence. *Mr. Burr Heneman, A § H Builders, August 21, 1975. e Crowd-control training of the monitors by the Sonoma County Sheriff's office and the Sonoma County District Attorney's office; e Contracting to hire uniformed off-duty Sheriff's deputies to help control traitics* e Assuming total financial responsibility for additional police activities related to the Fence project. g) Emergency Medical Service. During the periods when large numbers of visitors are expected to be viewing the Fence, an ambulance is to be provided by Running Fence Corporation and kept in readiness on one of the crowded roads in case of emergency. Traffic could be controlled to enable use of the road by an ambulance in case of emergency. h) Recreation Areas. Normal. controls on numbers of visitors to public recreation areas (as on holiday weekends) would mitigate potential impacts. *Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California State Highway Patrol, approves of uniformed (off-duty) Sheriff's deputies aiding in traffic flow and general policing. He disapproves of amateur monitors guid- ing, slowing, or stopping traffic; but approves of their monitoring private property--telephone communication August 21, 1975. 47 48 6. | ECONOMICS Setting The proposed Running Fence route crosses land which is generally open and used for dairy ranching. Some other smaller agricultural activities such as potato farming and turkey raising take place in the vicinity. The agricultural industry is the largest industry in Sonoma County, having had an income of $123.6 million in 1974-75. Of all of the activities which are a part of the agricultural © industry, milk production is the largest. The Sonoma County milk industry had an income of $42 million in 1974-75. The largest _ dairy companies in the County are Clover and Challenge. The unit price for milk in the County is good but hay and land prices are high.* Some ranchers have moved to the San Joaquin or Sacramento Valleys because of the rising land assessments in Sonoma County.* Although agriculture represents the largest industry in the County, it comprises only a small portion (about 2 percent) of the total earnings of the County, including all wages, salaries, and other labor and proprietors’ income. Of the total earnings, 29.22 percent are made in the governmental sector and 68.61 percent in the private sector, in which wholesale and retail trade (13.84 per- cent), services (11.53 percent) and manufacturing (9.19 percent) are the greatest contributors.** Farm income comprises 2.18 percent of the earnings. In a description of total personal income in Sonoma County in 1969, farm property income was recently listed as a negative figure.** This signifies that although farming is a sizeable industry, profit is not being made. This situation is attributed to the high costs of feed and other farm-related expenses, combined with the limitation on the price at which milk can be sold.* Ranch land in this portion of the county was reassessed two or three years ago. The large parcels of agricultural land did not experience much change in value even though there is an influencing development pressure in the general area. Parcels which were affected are those located in proximity to developing areas, like Penngrove, and those small parcels which are considered most developable--due to availability of water, sewer lines, and other services. Their assessed valuations have increased dramatically. *Mr. Harry McCracken, Sonoma County Agricultural Commission, July 29, 1975. **Sonoma County Economic Development Board, 1974. Recent sales in the area show that large 200-300 acre parcels sell for $600-700 per acre. Also, as noted earlier, the lands which have appreciated in value are the small parcels located close to the existing developed communities. Sonoma County has experienced a decline in building permits after reaching a high of 5,309 in 1972. This reflects the depression which has influenced the housing industry all over the Bay Area. In 1973 the single-family housing unit was more popular than the multiunit structure, but the most recent and projected trend is that multifamily housing and mobile homes will increase proportionately due to the high cost of land (Sonoma County General Plan Summary/1975). The new housing has concentrated in the vicinity of Santa Rosa, where much of it has been scattered in the unincorporated area, and, also, on the east side of Petaluma, which tripled in population between 1950 and 1972 (Zane, 1975). Impact In the process of erecting the Running Fence, persons would by employed from the local area to punch holes in the soil and place the poles, guy wires, and cables. Up to 225 persons would be hired to attach the sections of Fence. About 100 would be trained in certain skills for fire-fighting and crowd control to be used during the viewing phase. This constitutes temporary employment for some area residents. During the viewing phase, up to 100 persons would remain employed to monitor the Fence in shifts, providing a 24-hour-a-day guard. In addition, off-duty deputies from the Sheriff's Depart- ments of Sonoma and Marin Counties would be hired by the Running Fence Corporation as needed to control traffic. Most of the pre- cautionary measures and emergency services would be paid for by the Running Fence Corporation.* These include emergency use of helicopters, and services performed by the California State Highway Patrol or County Sheriff's Departments. They do not include all services performed by the California State Division of Forestry, for which there is no mechanism for reimbursement of training costs. This agency would train monitors in some fire-fighting techniques, as well as respond to emergency calls.** In summary, it is antici- pated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on the finances of the local governments or the local public service agencies. However, one State agency would have some unreimbursed expenses. *The Running Fence Corporation is financed by sales of Christo's art; 0.e., the sketches and drawings of each of his projects which he creates during the process of the project and after its completion. 49 **See Community Services Section. Note that there is a mechanism for reimbursement of the Division of Forestry by the individual or organization directly causing a fire. 50 The project would attract approximately 15 ,000- 30,000 viewers on a peak day,* the majority of whom would be from outside the immediate vicinity of the Fence route. These visitors would make purchases in the commercial portions of the local communities, bringing some business to merchants and sales tax to the cities; quantities cannot be estimated. Viewing of the Fence would introduce the area to great numbers of people who had not visited there previously, which could result in a slight increase in demand for housing over a long period of time in this area, and therefore, pressure for development in this area. Land speculation in the area is down. As noted earlier, reappraisal of land value in the area within the past two or three years has not resulted in much change in assessed value for the large parcels such as those which the Fence would cross. Much of this land is not considered developable; some of it is in agri- cultural-preserve contracts with Sonoma County.** Much of it does not have water available nor are the soils conducive to use as a percolation area for septic treatment of sewage. It is unlikely that assessments would be affected by the Running Fence project.t In addition, a minor development pressure resulting from the event would not constitute a significant impact on the land or on the market for land. The significant development pressure which exists at the present time affects the land considered developable; the Fence project could of itself create only a slight increase in the present demand for such developable land. The Fence would be removed by those persons who had been hired to erect it and monitor the viewing phase. The last stage of the project, removal,would complete and terminate the temporary jobs created by the Running Fence. Upon removal of the Fence, the materials used would be given to the community. One of the trucks with balloon tires used to erect the Fence would be given to Sonoma County, as well as one of the machines used to punch holes in the soil for placement of the fence poles. Each owner of land which the Fence crosses would be given the poles used to hold the Fence. There are over 2,000 poles; at a cost of $42 each, they represent a gift of $84,000.++The Fence panels and the steel cable and anchors would also be given to the landowners. The Running Fence Corporation will bestow *See Traffic/Circulation/Parking section. **See Land Use section. *+Mr. Don Martin, Appraiser, Petaluma Assessor's Office, July 23, 1975. ++At 1973 prices. a gift of a biokinetics machine--a machine which converts animal wastes into animal feed--upon the County of Marin. All these gifts represent a substantial monetary benefit to the Counties* and the ranchers in the area. Sonoma County also received from Running Fence Corporation in 1975 a use permit fee of $1,850,* and almost $800 in building permit fees** ($526.50 building inspection fee, $263.25 plan check fee, and $10.00 referral to County Water Agency). The use permit fees for new permits for 1976 are an additional $900. In order to better judge Running Fence's potential traffic impact, a special traffic count was made during the months of August and September, 1975, in Sonoma County at the request of the Planning Department, at some cost (amount unavailable) to the County for labor, computer time and equipment use. The value of Christo's art increases with time, new showings, and new projects. The Valley Curtain, Christo's most recent large- scale work, raised the price of Christo's drawings, which had been $129 in 1964 and $980 in 1969, to $7,200 in 1975.*** Nevertheless, the Christos (Javecheffs) do not profit directly from projects such aS Running Fence and its predecessor, Valley Curtain;*** nor from the films**** and books+ that result from such projects. The Christos (Javacheffs), who finance their projects (via closely held corporations) through the sale of Christo's drawings, had joint personal (adjusted gross) incomes for the last two years of: 1974, $7,207; and 1973, $1,743.++ Running Fence Corporation, formerly Valley Curtain Corporation, which finances Christo's large works and which is supported by the sale of Christo's drawings, had net losses for the last four years of: 1974, $74,659; 1973, $121,836; 1972, $65,083; 1971, $67,852.+++ *Lloyd Johnson, Zoning Administrator, Sonoma County, Telephone Communication, August 21, 1975. **Anna Lee Wilcox, Office of Building Inspector, Sonoma County, Telephone Communication, October 17, 1975. ***Jeanne-Claude Javacheff, Personal Communication, July 28, 1975. ****Letter from Maysles Films, Inc., Filmmaker, August 15, 1975, regarding proposed Running Fence film. See Appendix N. +Letter from Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publisher, June 6, 1975, regarding Running Fence book. See Appendix N. ++IRS joint personal income tax return for Christo and Jeanne- Claude Javacheff and correspondence from Harry Auerbach, CPA, N.Y. _ *+++IRS corporation income tax return for Running Fence Corpora- tion and correspondence from J.K. Lasser § Co., CPA, Chicago. These figures include carried-forward losses from prior years. 51 52 It can be assumed that the successful completion of Running Fence will tend to raise the price of Christo's future drawings. Past practice, as noted, has been to use funds from sales of such drawings to support large-scale projects, a practice that the Christos are continuing in the present project. Nevertheless, there is no legal guarantee that all future income will go to the Running Fence Corporation (or its successors) for future large- scale projects, nor is it certain that the net worth of the Corpora- tion at any time will not revert to its principal stockholders, including the Christos. Mitigation As an overall net economic gain is expected to the community and the County, no mitigation is required. 7. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC Setting The Running Fence route, from Meacham Hill at Highway 101 to the coast, meanders among local roads and through the watersheds of two creeks: Stemple Creek and Americano Creek. The grazed rolling hills, contrasted with large late-19th-century tree plantings on ridges or along roads (for windbreaks) and on gullies (for erosion control), give form to the landscape. Eucalyptus, in rows or groupings, predominates among the introduced trees.* Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and poplar trees give a decided vertical contrast to the rolling terrain. Old fences--split rail, rustic picket, white board--add modified horizontal delineation, as do the local roads--emphasizing the on-going variation in elevation. Old (late-19th-century) houses, barns, relics of an old railroad, sheep and cattle, dairy trucks and signs, mailboxes supported by milk cans, and a surviving road sign stating "Slaughter House Road" identify the predominant use and interests of the area for close to a century. Impact The direct** visual and aesthetic impacts include theclaimed beneficial aspects, which will not be discussed here because, as noted earlier, they have to do with the subjective nature of the Running Fence as an art object. Of more concern in an environmental impact report are the potential direct adverse impacts; these have to do chiefly with the intrusive, if transitory, nature of the Fence as perceived by some local residents and by travelers along the local roads. The chief potential adverse imact is the blockage, or the partial blockage, of close in and panoramic views from residences along the route. Another is the dominance (as opposed to view blockage) of the Fence as an element of the close-in view from some residences. Local property- owners who have signed easement agreements with the applicant are *Which provide perch or habitat to numerous species of birds (i.e., turkey vultures, etc.), adding to the interest of the environment. **The indirect impacts result from visitors attracted to the area of the Fence route, primarily during the viewing period. Probably the most important of these indirect impacts would be the potential traffic congestion, the nature and the location of which would depend on the "attractiveness" of the Fence at specific points along its route. A detailed analysis of the variation of "attractiveness" along the route, with its implications for congestion, is presented in Appendix J. 53 assumed to be unconcerned about the adverse visual and aesthetic impacts (or to consider the visual and aesthetic impacts to be beneficial). This brief examination will therefore emphasize those portions of the Fence which may block or interfere with views from residential property not under easement agreements .* One group of residences so affected consists of the Penngrove area homes on the eastern flank of Meacham Hill. Most of the closest homes cluster in a band about 750-1000 feet downslope of the ridge- line Fence. For those residents, the Fence will change the appearance of the ridge line where it can be seen through the trees but it will not block views. One home near the northern end of Segment 23 is a little closer, perhaps 500 feet from the Fence. However, there are two intervening knolls, so that the Fence may not be visible from this home. Near the start of the Fence, at the southern end of Segment 23, is a group of homes, some of which are somewhat closer than 500 feet. These, however, see the Fence end-on at its closest approach. A second group of residences is that in the Happy Acres subdivision, on the southeast side of Meacham Road. The Fence would run about 1200-1500 feet to the southeast of these homes, and would be on the far side of the nearest ridge line. These residents now have some distant views of Meacham Hill, over the top of that ridgeline. It is possible that the top of the Fence would be visible above the ridge line; it could therefore partially block the residents' distant views of Meacham Hill. One home under construction in July 1975 is on the nearest ridgeline. The site has panoramic views to the southeast. While the Fence (below the ridgeline) would block close-in views, most of the panorama would be visible over the top of the Fence. *Direct visual/aesthetic impacts on all travelers are discussed 54 in Appendix J. 8. | TRAFFIC/CIRCULAT ION/PARKING* Setting** Beginning at the project's east end, the principal traffic-way for reaching the Running Fence route and for viewing the Running Fence will be via U.S. 101 (Freeway), West Railroad Avenue, Stony Point Road, Meacham Road, Pepper Road, Walker Road, Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, Franklin School Road, and Estero Road near the project's west end [See Figures J-1 and J-2 (Appendix J) and 6 (Section II.A.8 and Appendix K)]. To reach these roads, most traffic will approach from the south on the Freeway (Route 101), exiting at one of three interchanges: the Old Redwood Highway interchange at Denman Flat and then along Stony Point Road; Railroad Avenue; or Roblar/West Sierra Avenue and Stony Point Road. The return to the freeway may be by these same routes except that, instead of using Railroad Avenue, traffic must use an on-ramp at Pepper Road to the south of Railroad Avenue (see Figures J-2 and 6). From the north, those who leave the freeway will use the Gravenstein Highway (Route 116) ramps and then Old Redwood Highway (Railroad Avenue) or Stony Point Road. Those southbound motorists who first decide to leave the freeway after noticing the Fence would use the Denman Flat Inter- change. Those who do not leave the freeway may view parts of the Fence from the freeway itself. A limited number of twenty-four-hour weekday traffic counts by Caltrans and Sonoma County were available at the start of this EIR project (see Appendix K).* Also, twenty-four-hour and hourly weekday and weekend traffic counts on the principal traffic-way and on nearby roadways were taken in August and September 1975 by the Sonoma County Department of Public Works, in order to anticipate normal traffic volumes in September 1976, when the Fence will be in place (see Appendix K, Table K-1).* From all these counts and from personal observations, it appears that most project-area roads currently operate well below capacity. Exceptions may be certain segments of the freeway and of Route 1 on Sundays, particularly in the summer months. *This section is based on the calculations and judgment of Donald K. Goodrich, Transportation and Traffic Engineer (Consultant to ESA), except where other contributors are specifically identified. **The environmental setting can be presented only if the potentially involved traffic network is first delineated. *Details of data and calculations are presented in Appendix K; the emphasis in this section of the text is on assumptions, general methods of evaluation, conclusions, and mitigation suggestions. 55 So SRE GLOL WWLE4ullUy cue EWUUUS © JU5>5q OL Lqowoyny 92eIS SLUUOFL |e) BYR 40 UuOLSSLWAad Aq paodnpoudau dew o1sSeg 2 *Aempeou pazedtpuL HurZzt{13n 0 EDV SUOJLSLA G0UeT JO % SazPOLPUT « a oe were O salwe 0 We wo \ ae @ (ov38 NoTII4 "PY LOoyos uL|xUeLY puoj Kallen earace ee sien “aay ebapog i5wo2 50 i J f 0 . My 2 “BAY PROULLEY “M oY ‘any euuals “MQ P ‘ TLV LOD AD Noa se igou a Aemssaudxy yueg quauyoy “Glee 10. poytesiog] © ANOLS St 919 73 TH 79S PE) ANiOd, we 17 = TT AS yt - Cid 73 q AW if «< —— eee 5 z we 2) g's AY > TMA waiwion f © 2 sp z 5 cy in > 3 = A 3 2 . = ae x BBY wae r #\ie1vap1099 2 S22 TN 555 72 * Oy hs Wing o> .6l TJ ewoISIs in aa er Wy ia 4 } zy aN ys Ss - & z sleet as z a 3: , + 3 = Z| a Site eal = of ow * iz =| 1g ats j2 a es vad aa TW Oi Ses as ine 2 INO NeVIncd a o eS ee OF 77 AN poomurion The principal traffic-way for viewing the Fence is composed of five basic road types (see Figure J-2, Appendix J): 1. Four-lane freeway 2. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe and shoulder delineated by edge stripe 3. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe but without shoulder 4. Two-lane roads with neither centerline stripe nor shoulder Se One-lane road A review of accident records furnished by Sonoma County indicates an unusually high percentage of nighttime accidents on Stony Point Road in 1973, showing a possible need for after-dark road delineation. However, the pattern did not recur in 1974.* Impact Traffic problems are not expected during construction and removal of the Fence. The limited number of construction vehicles will make little use of tl.e roadways, except for arrival and depar- ture each day. The construction and removal stages will not cause sizable adverse impact from visitors, since the placing of poles and cables by men and equipment ought not to be much more attractive to viewers (especially frcem a distance) than the digging of wells, the building of water supply ponds, or the loading of hay--usual activities on Sonoma County farm and dairy land. The visitor impact will be during the viewing stage--a maximum of two weeks in September 1976. 5 As the Running Fence "'runs'' in an east-west direction, visitors can view it while driving west, and again while returning east, or vice versa (a round trip of about 45 miles). Also, they may travel the Fence route in one direction only, continuing to another *Sonoma County Traffic Department Accident Reports for 1973 and 1974. 57 58 destination, or returning to their point of origin by another route. The viewing route from the east would be via the following roads [see Figures J-1 and J-2 (Appendix J) and 6*). e Highway 101 e Old Redwood Highway e Railroad Avenue e Stony Point Road e Meacham Road e Pepper Road e Walker Road e Petaluma/Valley Ford Road e Highway 1 @ Franklin School Road e Marsh Road The relationships among view of the Fence, existence (or lack) of place to stop cars (along public right-of-way), and potential traffic hazard have been studied in some detail in Appendix J.** They provide a qualitative basis for some of the conclusions of this section (and Appendix K). A preliminary estimate of the visitor demand generated by the Running Fence (total arrivals and access routes) was made on the basis of crowd data from previous eventst+, the distance of the Fence route from Bay Area population centers, and the probable sources of Fence visitors.* It must be emphasized that this estimate is a matter of judgment rather than calculation; the Running Fence will be a unique event, with no real precedent to serve as a basis for extrapolation from the past. Factors taken into account in the estimation of numbers of visitors and the ways in which they will disperse to view the Fence include the following’: *Figure 6 appears here, and in Appendix K. **This portion of the analysis was performed by ESA staff. *Data. presented in Appendix K. The Fenee will be visible during all daylight hours for its proposed two-week display period. This distinguishes it from single-occurrence events, such as sports events or rock concerts, and makes it more like county fairs and similar occurrences. Unlike extended-duration events that occur at a fixed site, the Fence will be visible at numerous points from over 40 miles of public roads. Although Christo's past projects drew relatively low public attendance (leading, to the best of our knowledge, to no unacceptable traffic congestion) the total number of visitors attracted by the Fence cannot be ascertained with certainty because of demogra- phic differences between the Bay Area and the sites of the prior projects. Many viewers, even among those making a special trip to view the Fence, may be satisfied with the view they receive from the main approach routes, Highways 101 and 1, and therefore, will not disperse onto the cross- county traffic-way. Total attendance will depend on publicity to date, particularly that associated with the environmental review process, but also that associated with museum and lecture events involving the applicant. It may depend even more on the same kinds of publicity in the future. TV coverage may either encourage or discourage viewing attendance. Variation in daily attendance during the two-week display period will depend on media publicity immediately prior to and during that period. It is likely that attendance will be higher on weekends than during the week, and that it will build up over the two-week period, so that the peak day will be the second Sunday, all other factors being equal. Heat and lack of shade (easterly part of route) or fog and wind (westerly part of route), and rise in gasoline prices, may discourage some motorists from visiting and viewing the Fence. 59 60 The resulting estimate of the total number of visitors on the peak day (presumably the second Sunday) is expressed in the following in terms of the probability of occurrence of several levels of attendance: VISITOR DEMAND ON PEAK DAY Probability of Occurrence Number (Judgment ) Explanation 15,000 (5,000 cars)* 60% (probable) 30,000 (10,000 cars)* 30% (possible) 50,000 (16,700 cars)* 5% (top demand, though only 10,000 cars may be able to arrive, due to limitations of road network) ** The analysis indicated that about 80 percent of the Fence visitor vehicles will approach the viewing area from the south and about 20 percent will approach from the north. It is anticipated that the viewers, upon reaching the viewing area, will distribute themselves over the local road network (see Figures J-2 and 6) according to the following estimate: Percent of Roadway Visitor Vehicles West Railroad Avenue WS Stony Point Road (between Meacham Road and Route 101) 35 Meacham Road--Pepper Road--Walker Road--Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 20 Franklin School Road--Whitacker Bluff Road LS Route 1 north of Valley Ford 5 Route 1 south of Valley Ford iS Route 101 north of Gravenstein Highway 1 Route 101 south of Old Redwood Highway interchange at Denman Flat 55* Dispersed among other roads 20 *Three visitors per car (estimate for recreational travel). **Result of analysis herein and in Appendix K. *Visitor traffic on the section of Highway 101 between Graven- stein Highway and Denman Flat may be as much as 65 percent of the total, depending on visitor decisions on where to exit, which may be influenced in part by back-ups on off-ramps. Hourly traffic variations in general can be expected to resemble those of summer Sunday recreational travel, e.g., arrivals starting in mid-morning and continuing until about 3 PM. Similar patterns can be expected on weekdays and weekend days, with the latter reach- ing a higher level. The weekend to weekday variation should tend to follow the two-to-one ratio observed for visitors to the Sonoma County Fair and Sonoma County wineries. While the vast majority of Fence viewers will view the Fence from land vehicles, chiefly autos, some viewers may approach the Fence route by air and water. Visitor arrival by boat to see the coastal area is not expected to be heavy. The North Coast Harbor Study for the Army Corps of Engineers (by JHK §& Associates) showed that few recreational boaters are willing to leave the shelter of San Francisco Bay and brave the long unsheltered route to Bodega Bay. Roadways near the Fence route have a limited amount of capacity available to absorb new traffic generated by Fence viewers. The traffic impact of the viewing period will depend upon the volume of vehicle usage relative to the capacities of specific roadways. Vehicle usage is expected to vary from hour to hour and day to day. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between level of service (or driving ease) and hourly traffic volumes (capacities)- for two-lane rural roads. The Table is appropriate for the two-lane roads in the project area during normal, non-Fence periods. However, the actual capacity under the conditions anticipated during the viewing period may be one-half of these.* The narrower Type 3 and 4 roadways are assigned the same traffic capacity as the wider Type 2 (Setting Section) because parking would generally be prohibited from the former and allowed along the Type 2 roadway. Route 101 has been estimated by CALTRANS to have a one-way peak hour capacity of 3,000 vehicles on a viewing day.* Too much traffic compared to road capacity (i.e., Level of Service E to F) could lead to stop-and-go flow, traffic backups onto the freeway, cars running out of gasoline, boiling radiators, traffic accidents, and entrapment of emergency vehicles. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the possibility of network capacity over- load under the peak visitor conditions estimated above. *Letter to Mr. George Kovatch, Sonoma County, from Mr. L. Newman, CALTRANS, February 5, 1975. 61 62 —————— EEeeeEeeeSeEeEeeESEeEeSsSsSsSMMesFshsees— an TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE, TWO-LANE RURAL ROAD SS EeEeewre—— Hourly 2-way Level of i Volume Service Operating Characteristics 400 A Ideal flow 900 B Free flow 1,400 G Stable flow; some car-fol lowing; average speed 30 mph; a common service level for design 1,700 D Approaching unstable flow; average speed, 20 mph, greatly restricted dur to car-fol lowing 2,000 E Maximum volume attainable, average speed 10 mph. Level E is not likely to be attained. Operation may go directly from D to F less than F Forced, congested flow with 2,000* unpredictable characteristics. Stop and go, long queues Source: Adapted from page 308, "A Policy on Design of Urban Highway and Arterial Streets", American Association of State Highway Officials The descriptive operating characteristics apply to other road types, including freeways. However, the associated traffic volumes change with road type. *As traffic demand exceeds 2,000, the resulting turbulence reduces flow to less than 2,000. Accurate assessment of the potential traffic impacts of the Running Fence is precluded by a combination of uncertainties, including those pertaining to the following: ® Maximum likely levels of visitor traffic e Ratio between peak week-end visitor traffic and week-day visitor traffic e Hours when Fence visitor traffic would occur; percent of daily visitor traffic in the peak (visitor) hour 6 Non-visitor ("'normal'') traffic during the display period ® Visitor-traffic splits on the affected road network e Actual capacity of individual segments of the affected road network, under potential traffic conditions during Fenee display e Variation in capacity among the different road types in the affected road network Therefore, the approach taken was to examine several critical elements of the road network, under a series of assumptions.* The road elements evaluated were: (a) Highway 101; (b) Walker Road; (c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road; and (d) Highway 1, east of Franklin School (in Valley Ford itself). Stony Point Road and Bodega Avenue were also investigated, but with less confidence in the input data. The assumptions were as follows: e Total visitor "demand" on the peak day (second Sunday) is 10,000 vehicles (the 30 percent probability figure) e While the normal weekend/weekday ratio of daily traffic throughout the road network is about two to one, the ratio of the peak-visitor-day (second-Sunday) Fence visitor traffic to the Fence visitor traffic on the first day (weekday) of display is about four to one. That is, interest will develop as the display goes on. *This examination was performed by ESA staff, after the receipt, on October 17, 1975, of the traffic count data presented in Appendix K. The results confirmed the main conclusions of Donald K. Goodrich, Con- 63 sultant to ESA, which had been based on the limited data available im Juby, 1975. 64 Visitor-traffic splits throughout the road network are as estimated earlier in this Section. Visitor-traffic in the peak visitor hour is 15 percent of daily visitor traffic. For "normal" traffic, the figure is 10 percent. In the absence of data on existing weekend traffic on Highway 101, weekday maximum traffic levels can be assumed to apply (as the setting) on weekends. Thissts not unreasonable for a freeway segment that combines business, commute, and recreational tratere. Highway 101 peak hour capacity in the vicinity on a viewing day is, as noted above, 3,000 vehicles (one-way), or 6,000 vehicles (two-way). Capacity of the two-lane local roads during the viewing period is, as noted above, one-half of the normal capacity, because visitors will slow down and/or park to view the Fence. The approach used in estimating traffic levels of service resulting from the addition of Fence visitor traffic to "normal" traf- fic was as follows: The calculation was for the peak (PM) hour on the second Sunday. The resulting peak hour total flow was compared to the above criteria for capacity. For the two-lane rural roads, the first comparison was against the flow criteria for Level of Service C, as reduced by 50 percent to account for conditions during viewing. Once the situation for the peak day (second Sunday) had been established, the situation on the average weekday could be assessed. This would be needed for the develop- ment of a contingency plan, to be based on traffic levels experienced (after the fact) during the first weekdays of viewing. The initial assumption was that the visitor demand on the second Sunday would be 10,000 vehicles (the 30 percent probability figure). The results of the evaluation were as follows (the calculated flows represent normal traffic plus visitor traffic): a) Highway 101--The peak-hour second-Sunday one-way flow in the segment of the freeway between Denman Flat and Gravenstein High- way would be about 3,100 vehicles. This is greater than the capacity of 3,000 stated above. That is, if the visitor demand reached 10,000 cars per day, Highway 101 would reach Level of Service F. On Highway 101 south of Denman Flat, the flow would be slightly lower, but still above the stated capacity. Since Highway 101 is the principal access route to the Fence area, its northbound approach carrying 55 percent of the total visitors and its southbound approach carrying 15 percent of the total visitors, it appears to be the controlling element in capacity analysis and in California Highway Patrol decisions about requesting removal of the Fence. On weekdays, the freeway capacity would not be reached, whether the assumption used is a weekend/weekday visitor flow ratio of four to one or of two to one. On the other hand, if the 30 percent probability assump- tion of 10,000 visitor vehicles on the second Sunday is conservative, weekday flows could be high enough to indicate this possibility, while still remaining below capacity. b) Walker Road--This segment of the (viewing) road network experiences very little traffic normally; however, the road is twisting and narrow (Type 4). The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 320 vehicles. This is well below the modified (50% reduction) capacity of 700 (for Level of Service C). Therefore, congestion should not be a problem, unless large numbers of visitors try to stop along the shoulders for views (or photos) of the Fence, Since the flows on the weekdays will be further below capacity, visitor behavior on those days can foreshadow the potential problems on the weekends, while not causing serious problems itself. c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road-- This segment of the (viewing) road network consists of both Type 2 and Type 3 road, but experiences much more traffic normally than does Walker Road. The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 660 vehicles. This is still below the capacity of 700 (for Level of Service C), but close enough so that congestion from parkers or even those who merely slow down to view the Fence may be a problem. Again, experience on the first weekdays of the viewing period should provide clues to the levels and the behavior of the expected weekend traffic, and of their consequences. d) ey 1, east of Franklin School Road (within the Town of Valley Ford--This segment normally experiences higher traffic flows than does the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road segment above. The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 680 vehicles. The same considera- tion as those for Petaluma/Valley Ford Road to the east apply. Further complications may result from the presence of the commercial buildings along the road, coupled with the fact that the Running Fence route crosses this road within the town, providing a further attraction that may lead visitors to pull over. e) Stony Point Road, north of Railroad Avenue--The only available count for this road is a weekday figure, for the whole day, of 1500 vehicles. If the normal Sunday traffic is assumed to be 65 66 the same, with 10 percent in the peak hour, then the peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow (normal traffic plus Fence visitors) would be about 675 vehicles, still below the Level C capacity of 700 vehicles. However, if the normal Sunday flow is assumed to be 3,000 vehicles, the total peak-hour flow would then be about 825 vehicles, close to the Level of Service D capacity of 850. This situation could create problems, particularly since perhaps one- half of the visitors northbound on Stony Point might attempt to turn left onto Meacham Road. Experience on the first weekdays would again provide guidance as to what could be expected later, while unacceptable congestion would probably not exist at the time. f) Bodega Avenue, west of Pepper Road--This road segment is not part of the viewing-road network. However, it may be attractive as an access or departure road. Its existing Sunday peak-hour flow is about 750 (two-way), which would be above (worse than) Level of Service C, if the road were on the view network. Since it is not, the capacities of Table 1 apply directly, so that existing Sunday peak-hour flow is between Levels of Service A and B. Even if as much as 35 percent of the total visitor flow were to use this approach (an extremely unlikely prospect), the peak-hour second-Sunday flow would still be below (better than) Level of Service C. The main conclusion above is that 10,000 visitor vehicles are the maximum that can be reasonably accommodated on the road network, and that the controlling feature is that this level of demand would cause Highway 101 to go to Level of Service F. Thus, a decision by the California Highway Patrol to request. removal of the Running Fence could be made on the expectation that such levels would be reached on the first or second weekends, even if congestion had not built up to unacceptable levels during the first weekdays. The dominance of the potential Highway 101 buildup in the analysis and decision is confirmed by the earlier conclusions of Mr.Goodrich that a demand of 30,000 visitors (10,000 visitor vehicles) "produces Service Level ''F"' on 101 (Remove Fence if over 30,000 anticipated.)" Mr. Goodrich had concluded also that if as many as 35-40% of the visitor vehicles attempted to use the principal viewing trafficway between Highways 101 and 1, the controlling road network would shift away from the freeway, even at somewhat lower total flows. This is a more conservative judgment than the above analysis of individual segments would indicate. However, it takes into account the interior road network as a whole; of particular importance is the effect of left turns at different intersections, depending on whether the visitor vehicle is going from west to east or from east to west. Both analyses indicate, however, that with the expected gradual buildup of visitor interest there would be time to implement a series of contingency plans, including the ultimate mitigation of requiring removal of the Fence. Mitigation Mitigation measures will be presented first in terms of a composite of seneral suggestions by the preparers of this FIR and measures already planned by the applicant. Then the rationale for a traffic management plan, suggested by Mr. Goodrich, will be presented in some detail. Viewers should be kept off private property and discouraged from public roads that present hazards: (1) roads that are not through-roads; (2) too-narrow roads; (3) roads without turn or easy connection to other roads. Monitors and off-duty Sheriff's deputies will be hired by the applicant to protect private property and to guide traftic flow.* The applicant does not propose to provide parking areas. Therefore, in general, traffic should be kept moving smoothly. For those points where views of the Rumning Fence are especially clear or panoramic, the tendency of the curious (especially photographers) would be to stop. If there is no safe place to stop, a potential hazard exists and traffic should be kept moving. Sheriff's deputies will guide traffic while monitors (college students and others) will guard private property using two-way communication for assistance. The number of persons con- trolling traffic and protecting private property will be determined on the basis of need (100 anticipated on 8-hour shifts). Need will vary with time: (1) weekday vs. weekend day; (2) day vs. night. Road construction and maintenance activities should not be scheduled during the viewing period. All planned Sonoma County roadwork in the Fence route area will be completed by September 1976 (Sonoma County Public Works Department, letter of August 26, 1975 to ESA), most of it in calendar 1975. If private parking is provided by private landowners** (separate from any part of the applicant's proposal or plan), guidance should be received in advance by the landowner from public authorities * in order not to create more traffic problems because of egress and ingress conflict on roads. *Only uniformed police officers can control traffic on public roads per se. **Some landowners have stated interest in providing parking on their land. *Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California State Highway Patrol, Santa Rosa Area; Sonoma County Traffic Engineer; Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. 67 68 If traffic becomes too congested for stopping for viewing and photographing, it could be prohibited, except for emergencies; even whole roads could be closed to visitors.* It the viewing/ stopping hazard becomes dangerous to public safety, even after employment of the suggested mitigation measures, the ultimate mitigation measure can be employed: remove the Fence panels (especially prior to the first weekend) before the end of the viewing period. The applicant has agreed to this condition in advance; the decision will be made by Captain Denton. A Traffic Management Plan for the Running Fence should be prepared by a (consultant) traffic engineer for the following roadways: @ Route 101 between Petaluma Boulevard South and the Rohnert Park Expressway. Consideration should be given also to the Section of Route 101 south of Highway 37, because of the possible traffic conflicts with the Renaissance Pleasure Faire @ Route 1 from Valley Ford to Tomales Road e Principal viewing trafficway: Railroad Avenue--Stony Point Road--Meacham Road--Pepper Road--Walker Road--Petaluma/ Valley Ford Road--Franklin School Road @ Whitacker Bluff and Fallon/Two Rock Roads @ Bodega Avenue (From Petaluma/Valley Ford Road to Pepper Road, and perhaps points east) @ Pepper Road @ Stony Point Road from Gravenstein Highway to Petaluma Boulevard North @ Old Redwood Highway from Gravenstein Highway to Petaluma Boulevard North e West Sierra Avenue @ Roblar Road *Road closing, with the exception of the Estero Road situation, may be unworkable. Estero Road is a county-maintained, one-way road off Franklin School Road. It leads to a few parcels (Pozzi, Gaver, Pellascio, and de San Antonio Compadres) at the coastal end of the Fence route. The applicant has stated that he will not accept road closures (exception of Estero Road) as part of the project, because of their additional impacts. Instead, he accepts removal of the panels as the ultimate mitigation measure. The Traffic Management Plan will be able to use the available count data in a more detailed way to analyze the principal viewing trafficway for sensitive capacity areas. This knowledge, in turn, should allow a further refinement of the maximum traffic volume that can be absorbed (currently estimated at about 30,000 visitors/ 10,000 cars per day) before the Fence is ordered to be removed. It is also suggested that the plan address the use of publicity as a traffic-control factor. For example, minimal publicity will attract few visitors,while a publicity program will attract a great many more. A carefully planned public information program could give potential viewers driving directions that could assist them in avoiding the mosttraffic-sensitive areas.* Other elements that should be addressed by the Traffic Management Plan include road closures**, one-way viewing routes, use of uniformed police officers to guide traffic flow, temporary road signs’, flagmen, and mass-transit utilization. The implementation of the plan would depend on accurate traffic measurements starting on the first day of viewing. A Traffic Management Plan, whose framework is outlined below, will prepare public authorities for any level of visitation that is likely to occur. Contingency plans for three visitation levels are suggested: Level Number of Visitors A Fewer than 4,500 visitors (1,500 cars) per day B 4,500 to 10,000 visitors (1,500 to 3,300 cars) per day G more than 10,000 visitors (3,300 cars) per day The contingency plan for Level A should be implemented before the first day of viewing. To prepare for Level B, elements such as Signs should be prepared and their installation locations selected *See Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study Area 3 report. **As noted above, the applicant prefers removal of the Fence to road closures (exception Estero Road). *Approval for the road signing would have to be obtained from the County Public Works Department. 69 70 before the first day of viewing. If the first few weekdays indicate subsequent weekday or weekend visitation will exceed 1,500 visitor vehicles per day, the signs should be installed immediately. The ~ plan for Level C has four alternatives. One of the four alternatives should be selected and expanded after all the traffic count hourly data are available and prior to any viewing. The following is an explanation of the various contingency levels and the appropriate actions to be taken. Contingency Level A For Contingency Level A, fewer than 4,500 visitors (1,500 cars) per day, regulatory signs for parking and access control should be installed. These could be portable signs or temporary signs made of low-cost material. The signs and their location should be approved by the responsible jurisdiction. The parking- control signs would contain the message "'No Parking" and should be posted along all road Types 1, 3, and 4 (see Figure J-2, Appendix J). Parking can be allowed along road Type 2, which has adequate shoulder area. Other parking may be available at private, off-road lots, at which some entrepreneurs may charge for parking. A planned off-road parking program does not seem warranted, considering the few spaces it could develop compared to those available along road Type 2. A "Do Not Enter" sign should be posted at the entry to road Type 5, Estero Road, because the single lane of this dead-end road cannot accommodate two-way traffic. Contingency Level B At Contingency Level B, 4,500 to 10,000 visitors (1,500 to 3,300 cars per day), temporary guidance signs should be installed. These signs should be placed at, and in advance of, intersections along project-area trafficways. The signs should indicate turn directions for those who wish to view more of the Fence or who wish to return to major roads such as Routes 1 and 101. For those motorists who travel most of the length of the Fence, starting from Route 101, return is provided by use of Franklin Scnool Road to Marsh Road to Middle Road to Petaluma/Valley Ford Road. Another possible return is via Franklin School Road/Whitacker Bluff Road. Contingency Level C For Contingency Level C, over 10,000 visitors (3,300 cars) per day, four alternative mitigation measures are suggested. With Alternative 1, uniformed personnel and flagmen would have specific instructions for assigning rights of way to traffic to expedite flow and for turning excess traffic away from congested areas. For example, there is an existing truck pull-out where southbound trucks can stop on Route 101 at the top of the hill north of Railroad Avenue. From this stop, the Fence will be visible. The stop should be closed by barrier or monitored by State Highway Patrol- men on-site to avoid back-ups onto the freeway. Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow more visitors to see the Running Fence than would Alternative 1. However, these measures would involve considerable advance planning that may not be warranted, considering the fact that maximizing public viewing is not a major goal of the project. Alternative 2 would implement a one-way flow pattern along the principal trafficway.* With one-way flow, return routes via other roads would be needed. To satisfy art objectives, the flow should be reversible on different days, so that the Fence could be viewed from both directions. This alternative would require careful study to prepare a signing and policing plan to deal with the complex changes in traffic movements. Alternative 3 would institute bus tours for viewing.* Shuttle lot parking areas would be required. To induce people to use the buses, the main view route would have to be closed to general traffic.* As the C level of visitation would probably occur only on weekends, parking lots, such as at the Marin County Civic Center, and buses, such as from Golden Gate Transit, may be available. Alternative 3 would require extensive advance arrangements for buses, drivers, parking areas and road controls, routing, signing and publicity. The plan would also have to be capable of implementa- tion with only about two days advance notice. For example, if visitation is high during the first few weekdays, a decision to activate the plan for the weekend would have to be made quickly. Alternative 4 would take down the Fence in order to remove it as an attraction. Someone should be authorized to order the Fence removal** and should have at his or her disposal a pre-planned -publicity program that will announce the Fence has been removed. The decision could be made prior to a weekend based on weekday observations of crowd size. *The applicant has indicated that he would not accept these measures as part of the project, preferring the ultimate measure, removal of the Fence (Alternative 4). **See letter from Captain Eric Denton, attached to this section. 7] The applicant has agreed to this condition. SDMTIND aS au Bea ay STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 3854 Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 9501 2 Tig August 27, 1975 Ee Vial eit oS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES FOSTER CITY, CALIFORMIA 94404 Ms. Gerry Wolff Environmental Science Associates 1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, CA 94404 Dear Ms. Wolff: Regarding the "Christo" running fence proposal, I wish to clarify my current position and advise you of agreements reached with the Christo staff since my letter of February 10, to the Sonoma County Planning Board. Current agreements provide that I may order any portion of the fence, which I deem is creating a traffic hazard, re- moved. My particular concern is that portion in sight of Highway 101 but the staff has agreed that this authority is extended to any portion or all of the project. With this proviso I have no objection to the fence being constructed as originally planned. My criteria would be delays and/or accidents caused by people slowing on the freeway to observe the display or con- gestion on the secondary road net to the point of creating a serious threat to local residents by denying the roads to emergency services or delays of through traffic for unreason- able times. In addition, the Christo group has agreed to reimburse the State for the cost of our additional traffic control per- sonnel which may be necessary because of the display. Commander Santa Rosa Area 9. ENERGY Setting CEQA* was amended, effective January 7, 1975, to require that the discussion of mitigation measures in an EIR include a discussion of measures to reduce the inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. There is no need to describe the existing setting, since no current uses of energy on-site will change with the project. Impacts Planning, engineering, and construction of the Running Fence will result in the consumption of energy and material resources. The impact of the latter is relatively small since most of the structural elements of the Fence, including the fabric, poles and some cables, are existing materials which are surplus to, or deemed unsuited for, their originally intended use. Energy is the major resource that will be consumed by the project. The energy budget for construction and removal of the project is dominated by the fuel consumption of the vehicles and auxiliary machinery used. A rough estimate of the motor fuel needs during construction and removal of the Fence is as follows: construction - 3,800 gallons removal - 800 gallons For comparison purposes, 800 to 900 gallons of gasoline is an approxi- mate average consumption for one year of family driving of a standard size automobile. The principal consumption of energy, however, will result from the visitors to the Fence. Estimates of visitor origin distributions, travel distances, and the resulting total access mileage (on a per- thousand-visitor basis) are contained in Table K-2 (Appendix K). These data were used to estimate fuel consumption, under two travel-mode alternatives, by visitors in traveling to and from the Fence and in viewing the Fence.+*It was assumed that twice the length *California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which deals with environmental quality, the environmental evaluation of public and private projects, and the preparation and evaluation of environmental impact reports. **This is in every way a worst‘case analysis. It assumes that all visitor vehicles will travel the full length of the Fence route, and that all visitors would not have been consuming fuel in other ways 73 on the day(s) they visited the Fence. 74 of the road system along the Fence route, or about 45 miles, would be traveled by each visiting vehicle during viewing of the Fence. The estimated fuel consumption per thousand visitors is presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 FUEL CONSUMPTION IN ACCESSt AND VIEWING. GALLONS OF BUS/AUTO/AIRCRAFT FUEL CONSUMED PER 1000 VISITORS VISITOR ORIGIN Access Alternative Viewing Alternative A* B* A B C** (auto/air) (bus/auto/air) (auto) (bus/auto) (bus) Sonoma and Marin Counties 260/0 13.7/208/0 Other Bay Area Counties 1149/0 38.7/1002/0 Other, California 2541/760 9.5/2505/760 Other, Out of State 261/500 0/261/500 Total Fuel Consumed 4211/1260 61.9/3976/1260 1071 23.3/983 281 F"Worst-case" analyses, (based on assumption of Table K-2), which assign the full fuel consumption of the trip to Fenee-viewing, regardless of possible other reasons for the trip, yield upper-limit estimates. If each trip (except an access trip by bus) is assumed to be dual-purpose (i.e., to visit Point Reyes and the Fence) fuel consumption assignable to access to the Fence would be halved. The halved values would represent reasonable lower-limit estimates for fuel consumption for access; fuel consumption for viewing would not be altered. Similarly, jet fuel con- sumption for visitor access by commercial aircraft is not generally attributable to the Fence, since most flights have empty seats (i.e., the aircraft would be flying in any event). *See Table K-2 for fractional splits for Alternatives A and B. **Alternative C is viewing restricted to bus riders only. For a '"'worst-case'' weekday, with a maximum of 25,000 visitors, the estimated total day's fuel consumption would be: Access and viewing Alternative A--gasoline 132,000 gallons jet fuel 31,500 gallons Access and viewing Alternative B--diesel fuel (bus ) 2,130 gallons gasoline 124,000 gallons jet fuel (aircraft) 31,500 gallons For a weekday rate of about 15,000 visitors and a weekend daily rate of about 30,000 visitors, a total of about 270,000 visitors would view the Fence during the full two week period. The total fuel consumption would be: Access and viewing Alternative A--gasoline 1.43 million gallons jet fuel 0.34 million gallons Access -and viewing Alternative B--diesel fuel .02 million gallons gasoline 1.34 million gallons jet fuel 0.34 million gallons More modest visitor daily attendance rates or a shorter attendance period, either of which would reduce total attendance, would result in decreased energy use. Mitigation Resource use by the Fence will, with the major exception of fuel consumption, be temporary. Materials from the Fence will.be given to the landowners for their own use on-site or for sale as surplus. Consumption of fuel in the construction and removal of the Fence, although not inconsequential, is small when compared to quantities of fuel estimated for visitor use. No measures are proposed to mitigate this small consumption. The total consumption of fuel by the public during the viewing period can be reduced by: maintaining traffic flows to eliminate fuel waste in traffic jams; encouraging visitors to ride 4 or more in each car; and, most effective of all, encouraging visitors to ride in buses (and/or limiting auto use on area roads). Measures taken to improve the transportation energy-efficiency of the visitors will be the most effective in reducing the total energy consumption related to the Fence. The potential fuel saving (Table 2 ) from just using buses for viewing is about 790 gallons of fuel [281 gallons diesel (C) vs. 75 1,071 gallons gasoline (A)] per thousand visitors. This represents about a 74% saving in fuel use for viewing, in addition to the resource-utilization advantage of using diesel vs. gasoline as motor fuel. 76 BIOLOGICAL/PHYSICAL 1. | ECOLOGY a. Marine Biology* 1) Setting--Physical Description of the Area The termination point of the Running Fence is a moderately exposed intertidal area of the Sonoma County coastline at about Soon lotee ons Nel 22-eooN. 29.4" W. This. portion of the coastiume is a rocky intertidal region almost midway between Estero Americano to the north and Estero de San Antonio to the south and lies within the) semi-embayment produced between Tomales Point to the south and Bodega Head to the north. The region of immediate concern is a strip of very steep rocky coastline of approximately 1500 feet in length delimited on either side by very steep slopes. Access can be gained to the cliffs above the designated area only by crossing private land, and necessitates walking several miles or the use of a four-wheel drive vehicle over open country. Final access must be made by foot down a very steep cliff to the center of the study area. The slope immediately above the intertidal area shows signs of considerable erosion with both rock and dirt from slide activity accumulating along the bottom of the slope and there are signs of severe erosion on the two cliffs limiting the study area to the north and south. To facilitate a discussion of this intertidal region, it has been arbitrarily subdivided into four areas (Area 1, 2, 3, and 4) as illustrated in Figure 7. These areas are based predominantly on topographical features. For reference purposes, the figure also includes the ranges of the various intertidal biotic zones according to tidal datum (=mean lower low water, 0.0 feet). *This subsection was prepared by Dr. Welton L. Lee, California Academy of Sciences, under direct contract with the Sonoma County Planning Department. It covers the environmental impact of the Running Fence on intertidal and subtidal communities. The study area was visited on September 5, and September 8, 1975. The first visit allowed for preliminary observations to be made during a high tide (+5.0 ft.) (tidal datum is taken as mean lower low water); detailed observations of the biological communities were made during the low tide period (0.0 ft.) on September 8. Observations by other investigators are cited specifically in the text. *( 4a7eM MOL | Vauv AGNLS ADOTOIG JNIYWW 40 NOILWA313 Jamo, ura = ) wnzeg LeplLz 0F BALZeLeU Joo} UL uaALB St qUuBLoY LeplL}? sy, “SauoZ IL}ZOLq pure (p pue ‘e *Z ‘| Pauy) Seauy pezeubLsap Burmous eaue Apnys ay} JO UOLZDAS-SsOUD ILyeuMeUbeLg TVaILuaLNI-MOT ‘y INOZ L aos a ss ~ ,0°O = = oe TVGILYILNI-GIW ‘€ INOZ /9 C+ om SS eS ja et es TVGILUJILNI HOIH ‘2% INOZ OCS Fe ae ae a a m2 ee =e a SS 2 Ee Se TWGILMILNI YiddN ‘| INOZ te SSS Se =P GSS a Ea Z 3undi4 77 78 Area 1: Area 1 is composed chiefly of rock rubble and very large boulders. The area encompasses a tidal range from about +4.0 feet to +10.0 feet. This area, closest to shore, encompasses the supralittoral or splash zone, the upper intertidal (+5.0 feet to +7.0 feet) and part of the high intertidal (+2.6 feet to +5.0 feet). The rock and ,yboulders here have apparently accumulated both from slide activity and from rock movement due to very severe wave action. Coarse gravel, cobble, and small rocks are interspersed in between the boulders and rock rubble. Area 2: Area 2 includes the high intertidal (+2.6 feet to +5.0 feet and a portion of the mid-intertidal (0.0 feet to +2.6 feet) and is similar in nature with fairly large boulders sitting on a rock and gravel substrate. The northern and southern thirds of the study area are rocky with the central portion consisting of a gravel to cobble beach interspersed with a few large boulders. Area 3: The mid-intertidal (0.0 feet to +2.6 feet) and low intertidal (-2.0 feet to 0.0 feet) are included in Area 3. This area consists of large boulders set on a gravel and cobble sub- strate extending seaward from about 25 to 100 yeards. The tops of the rocks closest to shore reach to about the +3.5 foot level. Offshore, the rocks are barely submerged at about a 0.0 foot tidal level. The slope here is moderately steep with an even steeper drop at the outer edge. Area 4: The steep drop at the outer edge of Area 3 drops to a subtidal (-20 feet to -40 feet) sand substrate, Area 4. The entire intertidal is semi-protected by a series of offshore rocks and/or reefs which are more extensive to thenorth. These occur out to a distance of approximately 1000 feet or more from shore. There is much evidence of extreme scouring and heavy wave action. Virtually all of the rocks in the intertidal and splash zones are highly polished as a result of this scouring. The gravel beach area has a berm of cobble several feet high and the entire intertidal and supralittoral area is strewn with debris including much algal and benthic invertebrate material torn loose from lower intertidal zones offshore, as well as several logs of considerable size. The area can be generally designated as a moderately steep rocky intertidal, often swept by heavy seas, and showing evidence of considerable scouring by rocks and/or sand. Off the Central California Coast, we find that wave action, current, and temperature are largely influenced by a series of marine seasons. Three distinct hydrographic periods have been elucidated by Solin and Abbott, 1963. These are: 1. The Upwelling Period: This occurs from March to July or August and is the longest of the three periods. It is dominated by winds from the north or northwest and by considerable upwelling of deeper, colder water. Coastal conditions are usually moderately calm and strongly influenced by heavy fog which is a result of the interaction of the cold upwelled water on warmer, moist air above. 2. The Oceanic Period: This occurs in September and October when the winds from the northwest are reduced, when upwelling essentially ceases and when, as a result, temperatures are highest along the coast. This season is characterized by generally very warm and calm sea conditions. 3. The Davidson Current Period: This lasts roughly from November to sometime in February and is characterized by winds from the south, declining sea temperature and domination by a northerly flowing current, the Davidson Current, which because of the Coriolis effect banks up against shore. This is the period of our winter storms and the roughest seas. Knowledge of the effects of these hydrographic "seasons" suggests that the greatest scouring in the area would occur during the Davidson Current Period when winter storms would cause heavy wave action to penetrate the protection afforded by the offshore rocks and reefs. The period with least wave action and scouring would be the Oceanic Period when seas are calmest and the weather most often clear and warm. It is this latter period which has been selected for the construction and viewing of the Running FEnce. 2) Setting--Biological Description of the Area Comparison of the study area to other Central California inter- tidal regions. At all tidal levels, the populations observed were typical for the kind of habitat in which they were found. There was no evidence of endangered species or unusual or peculiar organisms that might be considered as being of special biological significance.* The area is typical for exposed intertidal regions subject to severe *Local biologists, familiar with the area, were consulted and concurred that the area was not biologically unique (see Appendix B, Supplementary Contact List , prepared by Dr. Lee). 79 80 scouring. For this reason, the communities represented are more impoverishedthan the usual, moderately protected, intertidal areas along the California Coastline. The assemblages seen at the study area are common to multitudes of intertidal sites along the Central California Coast and do not represent unusual or unique biological systems. Detailed biological description follows. a) Area 1: Although it was easy to see that wave splash reached the higher rocks in this area, as evidenced both by direct observation during high tide and by the occurrence of a fine growth of a bacterial and diatom scum over the seaward surface of these rocks, there was little evidence of any other organisms. The sole resident was the maritime isopod Ligia (Megaligia) occidentalis Dana, 1853. Large populations of this isopod resided in the cracks and crevices of these rocks but the barnacles and limpets often expected in such a location were not to be found. These upper rocks showed signs of severe scouring and weathering and this one factor probably excluded the permanent appearance of any other organisms. In short, this zone was dominated by a single isopod species and little else but a very sparse bacterial-diatom film. Below the splash zone, the rocks were severely scoured and no organisms were evident even under the rock and cobble substrate. b) Area 2: From about the +5.0 foot level to about +2.5 feet, the biological community consisted chiefly of littorines, limpets and barnacles. The highest areas of this zone had very extensive populations of the two common intertidal littorine molluscs, Littorina Planaxis Philippi, 1847 apd Littorina scutulata Gould, 1849. L. planaxis was relatively sparse but the populations of L. scutulata were very large. L. planaxis usually occurs at a slightly higher tidal height than L. scutulata and in this region, this relegated these molluscs to the very tops of the larger boulders. It is probable that inade- quate space was available for L. planaxis to become as abundant as the other species. Throughout this zone were to be found very large populations of limpets. Chief among those found in the area were Collisella digitalis (Rathke, 1833) and Collisella scabra (Gould, 1846) with some Notacmea persona (Rathke, 1833) occurring in cracks and crevices. These populations were sparse on the seaward faces of the boulders except in cracks and fissures in the rock, but much more extensive on the sides and backs of these same rocks. Immediately below were extensive populations of two barnacles, Balanus glandula Darwin, 1854 and Chthamulus dalli Pilsbry, 1916. An occasional specimen of Chthamulus fissus Darwin, 1854 was to be found at the higher inter- tidal areas. These populations were extensive in more protected places such as rock surfaces protected by other surrounding rocks, or the sides of rocks most protected from the prevailing wave action. At the lower portion of their range, they formed extensive mats over many of the boulders. The last species in this zone of any note were two gastropod molluscs. One, Tegula funebralis (A.Adams, 1855) was only found occasionally in dense clusters at the bases of the rocks in Zone 1, and always in the most protected areas. The second mollusc, Nucella emarginata (Deshayes, 1839) was scattered throughout the barnacle covered rocks. DISCUSSION (Area 2) Several interesting points were noted regarding the occurrence of organisms in this portion of the intertidal. First, it was obvious that while all of the species noted were to be expected at this tidal level in such a habitat, their distribution was strongly influenced by one factor, exposure to wave action. Much of the rock surface on which these organisms could reside was highly polished due to abrasion by both rock and sand. In these areas, no organisms could be found. This principally occurred on the seaward face of rocks and at their bases where they were scoured by the gravel and cobble substrate. Distribution of almost all of those species noted was highly irregular and a perusal of this distribution pattern could be utilized to elucidate small scale current patterns and local wave exposure. Perhaps most interesting was the size-class distribution evident in most of these populations. In the center of the intertidal study area where wave action and scour was greatest, the populations showed the domination of one size class, usually smaller, younger animals. For example, populations of Littorina scutulata Gould, 1849 showed a single size class (about 2 mm) in the central, more exposed region. To the north and south where offshore rocks afforded substantial protection from wave action, the popula- tions were represented by specimens of all size classes with no single size Class predominating. The same phenomenon was most notable also in populations of barnacles. Presumably, the one size class seen in the more exposed areas represents a single settlement which probably is substantially destroyed at the outset of the winter storms. It should also be noted that, for many of these organisms, larval settlement itself could well be prevented as a result of wave shock and scour. To the north and south in more protected areas, mortality is probably due to a variety of causes, none quite so severe as the scouring noted above, and the organisms can survive over a considerably longer time allowing for a more mixed population structure. The littorines and limpets, representing the vast majority of organisms in this area, are already adapted to heavy wave action by their morphology and/or through behavioral means. They feed predominately upon the abundant bacterial and diatom scum covering the rocks. This source of food also is virtually unaffected by wave action. Barnacles, on the other hand, are particulate feeders dependent upon suspended material brought to them by currents and waves. Barnacles, however, are highly susceptible to scouring and while food is certainly not a critical factor in this location, 8] 82 their distribution is severely limited as a result of scouring activity. This is true also for Tegula funebralis (A. Adams, 1855) which, in this area, feeds predominantly on algal debris thrown up by the wave action. Its distribution is largely influenced by the combination of availability of food and protection from heavy wave action. The chief predator, principally on the barnacle Balanus, is the Gastropod Mollusc Nucella emarginata (Deshayes, 1839) which is even more restricted in its distribution for the same reasons. One species, Tegula funebralis (A.Adams 1855) has a very limited distribution but is present here as a direct result of heavy wave action, which distributes algal wrack up into the intertidal, where it serves as a rich source of food. It is to be noted that this animal likewise can utilize attached algae and diatom scum for food but prefers wrack, especially brown algae. wNucella were seen only in areas where there was sufficient relief on the rocks to allow them to retreat from the more exposed areas. c) Area 3: The most apparent feature of this area is the presence Of sparse aggregations of the red alga Endocladia muricata (Postels and Ruprecht) J.G. Agardh, on the tops of the rocks closest to shore. This occurs on most of the rocks whose tops do not fall below about the +3.0 foot level. In the central part of this portion of the intertidal area, the tops of the rocks may serve as a substrate for organisms other than the Endocladia, depending on the degree of protection afforded from wave action. In the mo¥e-protected areas, one finds either large masses of the barnacle Balanus glandula Darwin, 1854 (with Chthamalus dalli Pilsbry, 1916 and Chthamalus fissus Darwin, 1854) or sparse mats of the alga Pelvetiopsis limitata (Setchell) Gardner with some Fucus distichus Linnaeus, below. On rocks with a more-flattened surface, some Mytilus californianus Conrad, 1837 may be found interspersed with the gooseneck barnacle Pollicipes polymerus Sowerby, 1833. Populations of both of these organisms, however, are very sparse. In the most protected areas, namely those to the north and south extremes of the study area, the rocks show a sparse cover of Pelvetiopsis limitata (Setchell) Gardner with massive growths of red alga Porphyra perforata J.G. Agardh. Immediately below this uppermost band of organisms, the rocks in Area 3 all show a more or less thick skirt of red algae. This band includes Gigartina papillata (C.A. Agardh) J.G. Agardh, Gigartina agardhi Setchell and Gardner, and other red algae typical of this zone. It should be noted that the tidal ranges of the bands of organisms in Area 3 show considerable variation depending on the degree of exposure. Likewise, it is important to note that the various algal bands mentioned all support their usual complement of microfauna. For example, the Endocladia supports substantial populations of gammarid amphipods such aS Oligochimus lighti Barnard, 1969, and the Porphyra shelters large populations of the gastropod mollusc Barleeia, possibly B. baliotiphila Carpenter, 1864. Below this band of red algae, the effects of scouring were most notable and the plants and animals normally found at this tidal level were not present. This area was essentially bare, at times polished, and supported only one macrofaunal species in any abundance at all. This was the starfish Pisasterochraceus (Brandt, 1835). This star- fish was exceedingly abundant just below the skirt of red algae and especially on those rocks supporting large barnacle populations. Other than this single species, little else was visible in the central portion of the study area with the exception of occasional strands of the brown alga Egregia menziesii (Turner) Areschoug and, at the very outer edge of the rock shelf, the brown alga Cystoseira osmundacea (Menzies) C.A. Agardh. In the more-protected areas to the north and south of the study area, the region below the skirt of red algae supported little else than encrusting and erect coralline algae with their associated microfauna. The only obvious macro-invertebrates were the.sea anemones Anthopleura elegantissima (Brandt, 1835) in the shallower portions and A. xanthogrammica (Brandt, 1835) in deeper water. Both of these anemones were almost always found in bare rock and cobble. The usual splendid array of tunicates, sponges, hydroids, etc. which characterize this lower intertidal zone were nowhere to be seen and once again, the apparent reason was scouring. DISCUSSION (Area 3) The rock shelf of Area 3 is not dissimilar from other central coastal intertidal areas of the same tidal range. The populations seen are all typical of their respective tidal heights and the mid- intertidal area in particular supports the kinds of populations normally expected. The major predators of these populations are starfish, which feed on sessile forms such as barnacles and bivalve molluscs, and intertidal fishes and birds, which prey upon those animals living on the various algae found in the area. The greatest number of organisms noted in this intertidal area are either filter feeders such as Balanus or herbivores feeding on the attached algae. Once again, the influnce of wave action and scouring were notable. The rocks in this area showed essentially a "'cap'' of growth below which was little more than bare rock. The usual rich and diverse lower intertidal zone was essentially bare and the delicate organisms which should be common here were nowhere to be found. d) Area 4: Direct observations were not made on this area. In a region such as this, dominated by scouring and heavy wave action, one would suspect considerable movement of sand which would preclude 83 84 any large, permanent populations of organisms. While no observations could be made, it is probable that the sand area in the deeper water would be essentially bare or would support small populations of organisms which would disappear at the outset of heavy seas.* OTHER NOTES Two California sea lions were observed during the study period (September 5 and 8) and possibly a single harbor seal near the off- shore islets which appeared to be rich and less subject to the scour- ing seen intertidally. Birds also are present in some numbers and diversity along the immediate coast area. On July 22, 1975, the black-bellied plover, the marsh hawk, the turkey vulture, the cormorant, the California brown pelican, the black oyster catcher, and various gulls were observed by T.H. Lindenmeyer (ESA) and B. Heneman (representing Running Fence Corporation) . 3) Impact--Description of Changes within the Intertidal and Subtidal of the Study Area as a Result of the Project _ Details of the changes to be made can be obtained elsewhere. Suffice to say that there is no construction within the intertidal itself. In addition, the pole closest to the ocean will be located near the bottom of a grassy slope which ends at a lip approximately 20 feet above the high tide line of the study area. That pole will be situated far enough on the landward side of the lip so that guy anchors running seaward from the pole will be set in solid ground. These anchors will be set back from the lip so as not to contribute to sloughing. The anchors will be tested to working load. No anchors or anchor cables will be any closer to the intertidal zone than the top of the lip. From the top of the last pole (approximately 40 feet above the intertidal), the top cable (7/8ths inch wire rope) will run seaward approximately 550 feet, where it is attached to the apex of a V-shaped bridle. The legs of the bridle extend seaward another 450 feet to anchors, the type of anchor to be determined by the type of bottom (Danforth 200-H, if the bottom is sand). The bridle is also of 7/8ths inch wire rope. A flotation buoy at the junction of the top cable and bridle will be used to give the top cable the propse sag for display of the fabric panel. The top cable and bridle will be marked with any buoys required by the Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard. *These judgments were confirmed by subsequent observations by Environmental Research Consultants, Inc. See Appendix M. During the maximum two-week display period in September, a 300 foot long nylon panel, tapered from a width of 18 feet where it is attached to the first pole at the top of the cliff to a width of about two feet at the seaward end, will be pulled out on the top cable on blocks. The bottom of this loose-footed panel will be weighted to keep it vertical in normal winds. The bottom of the fabric panel will be under water a maximum of two feet toward the seaward end. Crossing the intertidal zone, the bottom of the fabric panel will be several feet above the water at high tide. In short, the only changes to be made are 1) the deposition of two sea anchors 1000 feet offshore; 2) the presence of a wire rope through a small portion of the offshore water colum; 3) the suspen- sion of nylon panels into the surface waters of the offshore area. No changes are planned for the intertidal area itself. The timing of these changes is as follows: one month construction period in August, two weeks display in September and two weeks removal time. The two oceanographers consulted (see Appendix B, Supplementary Contact List) feel that if the seas are relatively calm, the combina- tion of 7/8ths inch wire rope and two Danforth Anchors should be sufficient to hold the Fence in place. Since the display of the seaward portion of the Fence is planned for the oceanic period, our calmest marine season, there is small likelihood of there being sufficiently violent weather to dislodge this portion of the Fence. However, should we experience unseasonable bad weather during the display period, the worst that is likely to happen is the collapse of the final shore poles and the disengagement of the anchors. In such an event, the wire rope and nylon panels would drop into the intertidal and swirl around. The wire rope would probably eventually bury itself. 4) Impact--Discussion of Potential Impacts Several significant environmental values can be identified with the general region surrounding the study area. These are: scenic- aesthetic, recreational, wilderness-pristine, geological, and biologi- cal, including possible endangered species habitat, critical ecosystem, and fish spawning and nursing. a) Scenic-aesthetic The study area is unquestionably a scenic region with great aesthetic value. From the cliffs above the intertidal zone one can obtain a vista of virtually the entire area between Bodega 85 86 Head to the north and Tomales Point to the south. It is a region of sheer cliffs and rugged, rocky coastline. The scenic and aesthetic values of the area must be placed into context with present accessibility to the general public. Like much of the land between Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio, access to the sea is through private farm land. This access can only be made over fenced, private land with no maintained roads. Presently, the only people who have the benefit of the scenic and aesthetic attributes of the area are those working on their farmlands. One possible exception is the access afforded from the sea and/or air. Noteworthy is the fact that normally, the region is severely restricted to use by a very minor portion of the general public. b) Recreational In the study area, there are no facilities other than the potential for fishing which lend themselves to recreational use. Hiking, etc. is prohibited due to the private ownership of the land and the difficult access. Fishing of any kind from shore is likewise prohibited for the same reasons. Offshore fishing is possible but highly improbable due to the abundance of offshore islets and submerged rocks, not to mention the restrictions due to potential heavy wave action. In brief, the area, because of its location and isolation, now has little recreational potential. The brief incurrence of the Running Fence should not impose even short term changes on this potential . c) Wilderness-pristine The area in question can hardly be stated as being wilderness or pristine. Intertidally, the area is similar to many hundreds of like sites located along the California coastline. The changes to take place are all of very short duration and should only impact the deeper waters where the anchors are to be set, and perhaps a small portion of the offshore surface waters. This impact will be minor as well as temporary. d) Geological (Biological Implications) Two possible surface alterations can be foreseen. First, the placement of the final on-shore support pole might possibly cause some erosion and sloughing of rock or dirt onto the upper intertidal area. Second , the placement of sea anchors offshore might conceivably disturb the bottom sediments. Both of these possibilities are almost meaningless in light of the nature of the area. First, there already is and has been consider- able erosion and sloughing of cliff material onto the intertidal - This area, biologically, is one in which the present communities have either adjusted to this natural phenomenon or are displaced as a result of it. The possible addition of a minuscule amount of additional erosion is considered to be irrelevant. Similarly, there is every evidence of considerable sand and rock movement offshore and intertidally. The presence of two sea anchors for a two week period is likely to have no biological effect. Any possible biological changes that might occur would be insignificant relative to the natural phenomena which occur all of the time. Here, no long term changes are anticipated and, if there are any short term changes, they would be of no significance whatsoever. e) Biological To begin, the area is not of unique biological significance. It is a habitat duplicated in hundreds of areas along the California coastline and does not represent some critical ecological system. There is no evidence or knowledge of endangered species present. Both commercial and recreational fishing are prohibited already as a result of almost impossible access both from sea or land and the vagaries and extremes of wave action in the area. In addition, staff member of the California Department of Fish and Game* have indicated that the region is not a significant breed ing or spawning area, and holds no special significance relative to sports or commercial fisheries. To assess the maximum potential impact on the biological communities in the area, one can assume the worst possible sequence of happenings likely to occur during the two to four week periad when part or all of the Fence will be in place. Two events could bring about some problems with the Fence which might impact on the intertidal. First, the sea anchors could give way during a severe storm. In this contingency, the cable could tear loose from the anchors and the cable with the screen would be thrown about the intertidal. In such an event, many organisms could possibly be crushed or torn loose from the rocks. In addition, such a mass of nylon and cable tangled on the rocks would pose a considerable clean- up problem. Loose nylon panel and cable might be of some danger to anyone in the immediate region during periods of heavy wave action. Simultaneously, it is possible that part of the last shore pole would be torn out, causing some sloughing of rock and/or dirt. *Appendix B, Supplementary Contact List. 87 88 A second possibility is that the partially submerged nylon panels would tend to accumulate surface debris and eventually give way under the pressure. Likewise any large floating object such as a log could conceivably break the cable or pull the anchors loose. In either of these events, the impact would be of little or no significance other than making removal more difficult. The area is normally strongly influenced by scouring. The amount of additional scouring incurred as a result of the proposed events would be far less than occurs naturally. Those organisms destroyed would be quickly replaced butsubject to the same potential destruction by natural scouring forces. Similarly, any erosion or sloughing of material resulting from the collapse of the terminal pole on-shore would be minuscule rela- tive to natural sloughing and erosion. It is appropriate to note again that the California brown pelican does utilize the shallow coastal waters where the Fence route enters the ocean. It is impossible to predict how individual birds of this species might react to the cables and fabric of the Fence. It does seem likely that these would be very visible, and that the irregular activity, as the Fence moves with wind and wave action, would be sufficiently alarming to cause the birds to stay away from the Fence. If this is the case, it is not anticipated that the Fence will have any adverse effect upon the pelican.* 5) Mitigation The plans for constructing and displaying the RUNNING FENCE show considerable forethoughtrelative to the possible impact on the inter- tidal and subtidal regions. First, construction and display are programmed for the oceanic period when wind and wave action are normally of little significance and seas are almost always calm. Second, the display period is for only two weeks and the materials are to be fully removed within two weeks of the display period. Finally, the only physical disruption to the oceanic area is the placement of two sea anchors and a small portion of the nylon panel into the nearshore waters. *Conclusion of T.H. Lindenmeyer (ESA), based on discussion with Mr. Daniel W. Anderson, Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 6) Discussion and Recommendations The short period allowed for an investigation of the inter- tidal area obviates any in-depth analysis of the marine communities present. However, the area in question is so typical of other exposed coastal areas along this coastline that a description of the major faunal elements and the prevailing environmental conditions is sufficient to make a reasonable assessment of the impact. The placement of the terminal portion of the Running Fence poses no irreversible or long term problems to the marine communities in the area nor does it interfere in any way with recreational, scientific, or other potential uses. Short-term impacts are likely to occur only if the region is beset with unseasonable stormy weather. The likelihood that this will occur is minimal; even if it did occur it would bring about minimum alteration of the local marine communities. Such alterations would be almost assuredly less drastic than would occur due to natural causes and would hardly be noticed against the background of natural scouring frequenting this intertidal region. The only major impact likely is the effect on the scenic and aesthetic attributes of the region. Here, we are faced not with a scientific assessment but with value judgments. It is likely that there will be substantial numbers of people subscribing to totally opposite assessments of the artistic and aesthetic values of the Fence. Pertinent to this point is the fact that the Fence will be displayed only for a two week period during a period representing the mildest hydrographic conditions. Within two weeks of the display period, the entire Fence is scheduled to be removed. The only recommendation that can be made to reduce the possible impact of the Fence on the intertidal is to require that the materials utilized for the marine portion of the Fence meet the specifications needed to withstand the stresses of reasonable storm activity even though this is not likely to occur at this time. Consulting ocean- ographers and engineers should be able to supply the necessary specifi- cations. Assurances should also be made that the materials will indeed be removed two weeks after the display period. 89 90 b. Terrestrial Biology* 1) SETTING--GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION AND THE ROUTE The proposed route of the Running Fence lies virtually entirely within a region known locally as "The Petaluma Wind Gap''. This is a major Climatological feature of the north bay region which has _ recognizable effects on the local ecology. The generally low-lying topography, consisting of the drainage systems of Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio, allows cool moist winds to flow directly to the interior Petaluma Valley, a distance of approximately twenty miles. The biological effects of these year-round winds are many and obvious, both in the type of vegetation supported and in the increased length of the growing season. The latter frequently entends into early summer, in distinct contrast with immediately surrounding dry, brown areas. It is difficult to know in any detail what the original undis- turbed vegetation of the Gap was since there has been considerable disturbance for agricultural purposes for a period extending back . into the nineteenth century. The severity of the disturbance appears to be greatest in the eastern portions and least on the immediate coast, but perhaps only on the final slope into the ocean can we see relatively undisturbed vegetation. Because of the long history of disturbance and the somewhat unique conditions produced by the Wind Gap described above, it is difficult to classify much of the proposed route into the usual vege- tational and plant community categories. Most of the course of the Running Fence would traverse heavily grazed rolling, to sometimes, steeper, hills which form the topographic outlines of Americano Creek and San Antonio (Stemple) Creek. Along the top of Meacham Hill on the eastern end and for nearly twenty-four miles in a westward trending zig-zagging pattern, the proposed route, for the most part, stays on ridges and mid-slope levels. It rarely passes through or even near any woody vegetation. Where this does occur, such as at the crossings of several of the large tributaries of the Esteros (creeks), the contact is minimal and insignificant in its potential impact on plant life. Virtually all of the trees growing in the vicinity of the route are woodlots or windbreaks of planted Blue Gum (£ucalyptus globulus Labill.) or in one instance, the Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera Schneid.). *This subsection was prepared (under direct contract with the Sonoma County Planning Department) by Drs. John R. Arnold and Charles Quibell, both of California State College, Sonoma. Much of the inland portion of the route might be best described as modified Northern Oak Woodland*--without oaks. Whether the oaks were removed at an earlier time or whether prevailing windy conditions of the Wind Gap are responsible is difficult to determine. Some apparently undisturbed sites in the vicinity of the eastern end of the Wind Gap have good populations of Garry Oak (Quercus garryana Dougl). However, a case could be made that these sites are more pro- tected from the winds. Some north-facing slopes within the Gap may have borne a Mixed Evergreen Forest, a possible remnant of which can be seen near the intersection of Meacham and Pepper Roads opposite Section 19 of the Fence Plan. The vegetation which remains along the major portion of the route can best be described as essentially a mixture of Valley Grassland and Coastal Prairie species together with a high proportion of intro- duced weedy annuals and perennials. Many Coastal Prairie and even some Coastal Strand species are found considerably further inland than is usual because of the climatic features of the Gap. Since faunal distribution is most frequently predicated on vegetational features, it is to be expected that a shallow "inland sag" may also occur in Coastal animal populations in this area. Figure & shows the route of the Running Fence, with potentially sensitive areas identified. 2) SETTING--PLANT LIFE a) Introduction Botanical field observations were made only during the third week in September 1975. Both lists and some prepared specimens of the plants seen along the route were made. These will be filed at the North Herbarium, California State College, Sonoma. During the field work, a greater emphasis was made on the western end of the route between Valley Ford and the coast both because of the condition of the flora being more conducive to reasonable identifica- tion and also because it was judged that this constituted the less disturbed and therefore more disturbable portion. On-the-ground observations of selected sites inland of Valley Ford were made as well, including all areas expected to be sensitive as described be- low; but the whole course of the route was not walked out. *Vegetational terms follow Munz and Keck (1959). 9] FIGURE 8 KA) / KC KS YN Ys DA Hy ( ge} CO) . Rei = a pene aan Po <2 { la .. 4 Yep By ( { { ) ( i f : ~ é we j Loe A KOog Soya SSE : Ae L AK{ i) SNE De Fr} = 7 / \i - \ ASS SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER ~~ = AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL / \- REL Za Hh SS Se 94 —— Running Fence is 0 2000’ 1-10 Sensitive areas Laide FIGURE 8 SENSITIVE PLANT AREAS REFER TO FIGURE 3 FOR BASIC LEGEND = . 2 ; oo | < Es om Ne : Me * je ee, ee det Guy)? 104 y pA SS \ iP a OA gf aR a) Eiatae fe x = |) J . oD “Be S ; 1) seal; SG \ ry yay { : a ayes y/. “ p ne Ss a Uwe 3 95 The following remarks must be predicated on a reiteration of the fact that field observations have been made only during the September dormant period and that a fully adequate picture which would allow certainty of conclusions was not obtained. However, a careful study of herbarium and literature records compiled from all of the major collections in California institutions makes it possible to formulate very strongly probable conclusions regarding the likelihood of occurrence of plants considered ''Rare and Endangered Species" by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Powell, et al, 1974). One of the preparers of this (terrestrial biology) sub-section (Charles Quibell) was an active contributor to the Society's Rare Plant Project which produced the document referred to above. He is, in addition, curator of the North Coast Herbarium of California, which houses the very extensive collections of Milo S. Baker, who became, during the first half of this century, the leading authority and most prolific collector of the flora of Sonoma County. As a result, there have been available either actual specimens or herbarium label records of each of the CNPS "'Rare and Endangered Species" collected in this region back into the nineteenth century. In may instances, these records include habitat information, while in the others, knowledge of the restrictive ecological niches of the individual species is available from the literature. These, then, are the bases on which the following comments and suggestions for mitigation are made. b) Setting--Classification and Description of Sensitive Areas Sensitive areas in or potentially within the forty-feet-wide route easement Of Running Fence can be classified into three cate- gories: 1) Coastal Bluff and immediate vicinity; 2) Freshwater marshy or vernally wet areas; and 3) Rocky outcrops which have been protected from grazing. All but one of the rare or endangered species which could be encountered by the construction of Running Fence would,with little doubt, be necessarily found in one or another of these habitats. This one, Chorizanthe valida Wats. (Sonoma chorizanthe) is described as occurring on "sandy soil of coastal mesas in Sonoma and Marin Counties". No individual of this species were seen in the field observations in preparation of this report, . but due to the conditions of the area in mid-September, it is possible that they were overlooked. e Coastal Bluff and Vicinity Two plants could very well occur within the easement of the Running Fence in the last hundred yards before it enters the Pacific. They were not seen on September 13, but could have been missed because of the unfavorable season. These are: Arabis blepharophylla H. § A. (Coast rock-cress) which has been collected on Bodega Head and at Larkspur Rock (about one mile inland from Bodega Harbor on the south side of Highway 1), as well as further south in Marin County; and Agrostis blasdalei Hitchc. var. marinensis Crampton (Marin bent-grass) 97 98 the nearest collection locality for which is "among rocks just east of Dillon Beach".* ® Freshwater Marshy or Wet Areas There is a maximum of five rare or endangered plant species which might occur in these habitats within the easement. Most have only been collected in marshes of some size, examples of which do not occur within the easement of the Running Fence: Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. far. sonomensis (Sonoma alopecurus) "Marshy places on Pt. Reyes and in Sonoma County" Carex albida Bailey (White sedge) "Open marshy places below 300', Sonoma County" Campanula californica (Kell.) Hell. ''Freshwater swamps near coast, Marin to Mendocino County" Potentilla hickmanni Eastw. (Hickman's cinquefoil) "Rare in scattered marshy places, Sonoma to Monterey County" Rhynchospora californica Gale (California beaked rush) ''Bogs, Ledum Swamp, Pt. Reyes, and Pitkin Marsh, Sonoma County" ® Rocky Outcrops from Near the Coast to Well Inland: (Big enough to be ungrazed The Marin bent-grass, mentioned above under Coastal Bluff, more likely the Yellow Larkspur (Delphinium luteum Heller), and the Coast rock-cress (Arabis blepharophylla H. § A.) could occur on or around such rock outcrops. The larkspur in particular could be present with- out above-ground parts' being visible in September. This is a particu- larly sensitive plant since the only presently confirmed existing population consists of perhaps a few hundred individuals at Larkspur Rock described above, where it occurs with the Coast rock-cress. Earlier reports of the former species or of potential hybrids with it hint that it could occur south of this area. Both it and the Coast rock-cress could also be established well inland in this region because of the Wind Gap. An annotated list of all of the other species listed by the CNPS as rare or endangered and from Highway 101 to the coast in Sonoma and northern Marin counties will be found in Appendix D. *Also possible here is agrostis clivicola Crampton var. punta- regesensis Crampton. c) Impact--Instances of Sensitive Habitats* e Rocky Outcrops Several of these occur within or very near the easement as for example in the de San Antonio Compadres parcel and further inland on the Raven property. Other sites very likely exist along the route but it was judged that examination of them at this time would prove entirely inconclusive. e Freshwater Marshy or Vernally Wet Areas These vary from true vernal pools, two of which were observed near the edge of the bluff at the de San Antonio Compadres, to low overflow or flooding areas of San Antonio Creek, Stemple Creek or their tributaries. These latter places are all heavily grazed now and appear to have been for a considerable period such that the proposed construction would seem to pose little, if any, additional impact threat. The vernal pools and their attendant relatively lush marshy areas could, however, sustain a significant impact if care were not taken to minimize the disruption during construction and removal of the Running Fence. In addition to these, a spring-seep area was examined part way down the final slope into the ocean at the de San Antonio Gompadres: This and similar hillside seeps elsewhere along the route should be considered as sensitive and direct contact avoided when at all possible. d) Mitigation--Recommendations for Mitigation of Impact on Plant Life e Introduction Mitigation suggestions pertaining to the floristic elements must be prefaced by the strong recommendation for a subsequent field survey to be carried out in the spring of 1976. The importance of this to any sensitive and responsible approach to the potential negative environmental impact on rare plants cannot be overstated. A major proportion of the flora, including virtually all of the species classified as ''Rare or Endangered" by the California Native Plant Society in their Special Publication No. 1 (1974), is for all intents and purposes, unrecognizeable during the dormant season. *In the interest of conciseness, specific potential impacts are treated in the following subsection on mitigation 99 100 e Specific recommendations relating to the above-identified "Sensitive Areas" Coastal Bluff - Since the placing of anchors and posts on the last slope and vicinity entering the sea will necessarily require hand tools or unicycles only, it is not expected that a serious impact will occur so long as attention is paid to minimizing the physical disruption of the soil surface. The seep area should be avoided, even by extensive foot traffic. At the top of this bluff there is a pair of vernal (springtime wet only) pools and surround- ing lush somewhat marshy areas. If at all possible, these areas should be detoured around and vehicular traffic over them prevented. If passage across a lush area is necessary in order that a functional line be maintained for a low-impact entry into the ocean, this should be approached from the two sides rather than driven across by the various vehicles distributing materials, driving anchors, coring post-holes, etc. Freshwater Marshy or Wet Areas Away from the Coast - These areas should not provide special problems for the construction or removal process except aS one or more should prove to contain any of the rare or endangered species which could conceivably turn up in the spring survey recommended above. As a general rule, however, hillside seepage areas should be avoided or treated as suggested above under Coastal Bluff. In most instances, these seeps will be so small that this will prove no problem in compliance. Rocky Outcrops - Here again, avoidance would be preferable, but where a close approach needs to be made, this should preferentially be made on or along the south sides of the outcrops in each case. It is the north-facing slopes of these microhabitats which support Arabis blepharophylla H. §& A. and Delphinium luteum Heller. 3) | ANIMAL LIFE a) Introduction--Setting and Potential Impact On the basis of recent visits to the easement of the Running Fence and to areas adjacent to the Fence; upon studies of the literature; and upon personal knowledge of Sonoma and Marin ‘counties, certain general statements may be made. Most of the area to be traversed by the proposed Running Fence has been heavily grazed and much disturbed by man and his agriculture for nearly a century. Comments by local ranchers, hunters, and others lead us to believe that this area will continue to be much disturbed. As to the animal populations now present that might be affected by the Running Fence: ® The invertebrates will be little influenced except as they are crushed by the impact of the trucks and feet of the workmen. The flying insects, such as the abundant grasshoppers, will only be briefly diverted. e Of the amphibians, the tree frog (Hyla regilla) is probably the only one likely to be disturbed during the construction and view- ing periods. Other present in the general vicinity will probably not be disturbed at all. See Appendix E for a list of amphibians. @ Very few reptiles were seen during our visits and no rare or endangered forms occur in that area. See Appendix F. ® Many birds are present in the area; in fact, some 68 species were seen in our short visits, yet only one endangered species, the Brown Pelican, occurs regularly in this area. The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatuns) occurs occasionally at Bodega Harbor to the north and at Bolinas Lagoon to the south and probably occasionally crosses this area. The California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) occurs along the coast but our recommendations for modification of the Fence will probably protect these as well as other species and reduce the number of casualties to one as low as, or lower than, those created by telephone wires, power lines, and the highways. Appendix G lists those species observed by us in September 1975 and those likely to occur during the period of the Fence construction and viewing. e Most mammals are nocturnal and so our determinations are based largely on previous experience, tracks, scat, and literature. Mice, especially the California Vole (Microtus californicus) are abundant. (Marsh Hawks and White-tailed kites were observed hunting over the grasslands regularly). Indications are that the Gray Fox (urocyon cineroargenteus), Badger (Taxidea taxus), Black-tailed Deer (Dama hemionus), and Jackrabbits (epus californicus) are abundant. In some areas, Brush Rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani), Bobcats (Lynx rufus), Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and Woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) are common. Ranchers state that the Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 1S a pest in some areas. A list of mammals is presented in Appendix H. With the possible exception of the Brown Pelican, no rare or endangered animal species are present in this region. It is estimated that the construction of the Fence, if modified as suggested, will not particularly influence the animal population. 101 102 b) Impact--Specific Sensitive Areas The following areas are considered ''sensitive'' because of the possibility that the Fence and/or the supporting cables and poles will hinder the passage of wild animal life. It is assumed that the landowners will ask for sufficient passageway for sheep, horses, or cattle where such is needed. ® The ridge and ravines above the reservoir on the Button Property in the middle of Section 17 of the Fence route. This area constitutes a natural passageway of deer and the Fence could restrict their natural movements to water and cover. e The crossing by the Fence of the branch of Stemple Creek between the Tresch and Button properties at the junction of Sections 16 and 17 of the Fence route. Same problem as above. ® The crossing of the Petaluma-Valley Ford Road between the Kirkland and Lepori properties--the junction between Sections 10 and 11 of the Fence route. e The crossing of Americano Creek between the Titus and Albini properties, in Section 7 of the Fence route. A possible cripple-creating hazard. e The Ridge-crossing Fence between the Estero Americano and the Estero de San Antonio. A possible barrier to migrating birds crossing between the two estuaries. One such area is at the end of county-maintained Estero Road--at a junction of two farm roads and a rather deep ravine. Fast migrating birds might well strike the cables and/or panels here (de San Antonio Compadre--Pellascio line). e A similar situation could develop at a ravine just east of the Coastal Zone on the de San Antonio Compadre property. fo) Mitigation--Recommendations to Minimize the Effects of the Running Fence on Animal Life 8 It is recommended that at least one opening of at least ten feet in width ad three feet high be left in the Fence on the ridge above the reservoir on the Button property. This will be unnecessary if the final line of the Fence crosses the ravines at the top in such a way as to leave gaps three feet high there. The opening to be left for the farm road will also aid the movements of deer and other vertebrates to the west of the reservoir. _@ It is recommended that the Fence follow what appears to be its present plan to have the bottom of the Fence well over six feet above the branch of Stemple Creek on the west side of the Button property. In any case, the bottom cable here should be at least three feet above the creek bed. e At the crossing of the Petaluma-Valley Ford Road between Kirkland and Lepori properties, the Fence will probably not cause much of an obstruction to animal life since there will be a gap for Carroll Road as well as one over the main highway. However, space (3-5 feet) should be allowed on the south side (Lepori Property) between the restarting of the Fence and the dense vegetation against the farm fence to the west. If September, 1976 should be a rainy month, there will be a great deal of avian activity about the base of the Fence. e Where the Fence is planned to cross Americano Creek (between the Titus and Albini properties), it is recommended that no panel or lower cable be placed across the creek. While this should leave a space at least as broad as the bank-to-bank free up to about 15 feet, an even better solution would be to have no cables crossing the creek. This area is used frequently for birds flying up and down the creek. In fact, in September of this year Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets, Mallards, Snipe, and Northern Phalarope were seen flying along the creek at the Fence crossing site. e On the ridge between Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio, it is recommended that gaps be left as follows: a. At the end of Estero Road where the Fence will cross the ravine in de San Antonio Compadre (just beyond the Pellascio line), it is recommended that a gap approxi- mately 10 feet wide and 18 feet high be left at the middle of this deep ravine. This is desirable, even though there are openings at nearby roads on the banks above. Fast-flying, migrating birds might go over if the Fence is noted in time, but foggy nights or days might obscure the white panel. b. It is recommended that a full panel be omitted at the ravine at the west end of the de San Antonio property at approximately the beginning of the Coastal Commission Zone. Here, as in other places where the upper cable remains in place without a lower panel, white cloth or other visible strips 18-36 inches long should be hung at intervals of 5-10 feet to divert fast flying birds, single or in flocks. 8 Where the Running Fence goes down the bluff and into Bodega Bay, the cables should have highly visible strips hung from them immediately and these should be in place at all times except when the panels are displayed. The rather constant breeze moving the strips should keep birds from striking. 103 104 & The lower cable should be at least three feet off the ground at some place on this slope to allow deer and sheep to pass. 4) PLANT and ANIMAL LIFE--CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Erosional Problems Aside from the special sensitive areas mentioned previously in this subsection (Terrestrial Biology), we feel strongly that the greatest potential impact of the construction, display, and removal of Running Fence is that of rut formation by wheeled or tracked vehicles. It has been estimated that a minimum of seven separate vehicular passes will be required to distribute materials, set anchors, core postholes, erect poles and cables, set the panels, drop the panels, dismantle the rigging, remove the materials, and set the anchor cable stubs the required 18 inches below grade. This seems to us to be a very conservative (low) estimate of the number of transits which will be required. It may, in fact, be several times this number in some areas. Even this should not cause permanent scars so long as great care is taken not to traverse any sloped area which has not dried sufficiently to allow virtually no evidence of tire tracks other than that of crushed vegetation. This is especially important in the case of the steeper slopes where even slight depressions can produce channelization and inevitable erosion, with potentially ruinous results. Mitigations would involve the reduction, to a minimum, of the number of vehicular transits over any and all segments of the route and the use of all already established lateral access roads except where these might pose an even greater threat of erosion. Seasonal Problems Extreme care should be taken to check each area to verify that the ground is sufficiently dry to support vehicles before starting construction in that area. It is recommended that an independent observer witness the early construction phases to assure compliance with this very important recommendation. The panels should not be spread for the display period until the end of the Coastal Deer Season since even though there will be gaps in sensitive areas, unsportsmanlike hunters would be likely to use the Fence barrier to channel deer past posted shooters. Aside from other considerations, this could well produce a very dangerous situation in which hunters or other people are vulnerable to rifle bullets passing through the opaque but not bullet-proof screen. Fire The problem of an increased fire hazard in the region* due to the erection, display, and dismantling operations is of significant importance, both in terms of floral and faunal damage and of poten- tial damage to real property. This is particularly true because of the fact that timing of the project places these activities in the driest time of the year. (In addition, it should be pointed out that, during the display period, Running Fence will function as a barrier to free movement by animals who, should a fire threaten them, could be caught against this "wall".) Descriptions of the fabric have included indications that it is fire-resistant. However, it is likely that, should sufficient heat be applied, the material could mett and burn on the ground where dry vegetation would be ignited. Vandalism should not be ruled out in these considerations. Fires on grazing land produce impacts that are essentially no worse than those caused by grazing itself. Also, there is no reason to believe that local fires will threaten rare or endangered botanical species. As precautions, it is recommended that no smoking be allowed except at coffee or lunch breaks, i.e., not while the crews are moving through the fields along the route. It is expected that vehicles will conform to Division of Forestry specifications regarding spark and fire suppression and that each will carry extinguishers, shovels, and other fire-fighting equipment appropriate. In addition, it is under- stood that radio contact will be maintained with local fire fighting agencies. Because of the vandalism and public smoking problems, it is recommended that monitors on duty during the display period be provided with access both to radio contact with fire fighting agencies as well as some fire fighting equipment. *Frequency of fire in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County is documented in the Community Services Section. Most of these fires are man-caused grass fires. In general, the area is not subject to naturally produced fires, because of the local climate (moisture content). tas 106 5) | PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE--SUMMARY COMMENTS ® We have not considered the value of Running Fence aS an art form nor as a construction project, but simply as an influence on native plants and native animals inhabiting the easement and the adjacent areas, including those animals likely to try to move through the easement during the period from April 1976 through September 1976. ® Because of the ephemeral nature of the Fence, and considering the safeguards suggested in the body of this report, it appears to us that, aside from possible erosion damage, the biological effects of Running Fence will be only temporary. e Since construction, viewing, and removal will take place over a period of several months from Spring to Fall, it is recommended that periodic visits to the area be made by biologists. Such persons should be responsible for checking the effectiveness of the recommended mitigations and for recognition of potential presence of rare and endangered plants not visible in September. In addition, since minor re-routing may be demanded by soil conditions or construction problems, consultation with the biologists could be essential. 6 Because of the nature of the plant and animal life, it is recommended that construction be begun last and the Fence be removed earliest in the area between Valley Ford and the coast. e Potential impact of the viewing public should not be under- estimated and some means of controlling or preventing access, especially to sensitive areas, should be provided. It is recommended that strong consideration be given to the closing of Estero Road at the intersection with Franklin School Road since there is no adequate parking or turn- around space beyond this point. 6) | PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE--COMMENTS ON SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISE TO EARLIER REPORTS ® Fire Danger--It is our understanding that the synthetic fabric has low flammability and in fact "melts away from heat''. It is also understood that each vehicle is to be brought into conformity with California Division of Forestry specifications for fire prevention and that in addition, each will carry firefighting equipment and maintain radio contact, either direct or indirect, with local fire control agencies (see Subsection 4 above). e Used fabric and equipment--According to the applicant, agreements have been reached whereby all materials will be given to the owners of the properties traversed, the Fence will be removed as soon as possible after its two-week display period, and the materials will be dismantled and removed to mutually-agreed-upon locations by the erection crews. e Wind action--Our understanding of the Fence design is that adequate tests have been performed to assure safe operation even in the event of strong winds. Features of the design which specifically bear on this problem are: anchors to be tension-tested to 14,000 pounds at time of setting; wire clips designed such that the top and sides of each panel will separate from upper cable and poles, respectively, before any separation with the bottom cable, thus allowing the panel to lay out and spill the wind but not be blown away. e Cliff erosion--Since spectators cannot, according to the present plan, approach the coastal end of the Fence, cliff or bluff erosion will be affected only by construction and dismantling operations. Specific recommendations have been made to minimize this, including use of hand transportable tools on these and other steep and fragile slopes. e General erosional effects along the route--It is recognized that much of the easement and adjacent farmlands have been overgrazed and greatly modified over a considerable period in the past and it is unlikely that these conditions will change in the near future. Specific recommendations in mitigation of the effects of the proposed Running Fence construction and removal have been made elsewhere in this subsection (Terrestrial Biology). e Openings for wildlife--This subsection contains many recom- mendations which, if followed, it is expected will allow sufficient movement of larger wild animals to prevent serious impact on them. See Figure 8 and Section 3 c of this subsection (Terrestrial Biology). 107 108 Ze SOILS/ GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY Setting a) Topography. The Running Fence project site traverses a topographic low along the westernmost ridge of the Coast Range. Along most of its length, this first line of hills along the coast is on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 feet above sea level. The gap between Bodega Bay and Cotati Valley, however, is generally less than 500 feet in elevation over its 12 mile length and 8 mile width. The well developed drainage in this area hasdissected the landscape into rolling hills and broad valleys with 200 to 400 feet of relief. Slopes are generally gentle, but often exceed 25 percent; at the coastal bluff, generally slopes can reach 100 percent (see Figure 9). b) Bedrock. The oldest rocks in the area are of the Jurassic-to-Cretaceous- age Franciscan Formation. In this area these rocks consist of melange, an incoherent mass of crushed and sheared rock material containing small-to-huge blocks of coherent rock. Overlying these rocks on an old and irregular erosion surface are Pliocene -aged marine sediments known as the Merced Formation. These materials were deposited over the Franciscan rocks perhaps 4 million years ago, when this area subsided below sea level. Sand, silt and clay deposited in the old Merced embayment are today a nearly horizontal layer, up to 500 feet thick, of poorly cemented clayey sandstone and sandy mud- stone (Travis, 1949; Rice and Strand, 1971; and Blake, et al., 1971).* Near the east end of the proposed Fence alignment, Segment 22 passes over the Petaluma Formation. This sedimentary claystone, silt- stone, and sandstone also contains debris from the Franciscan Formation and the Sonoma Volcanics. Its age is approximately contemporaneous with the Pliocene Merced Formation, but the relationship is somewhat uncertain as their contact is at the Tolay Fault. Overlying the Petaluma Formation and forming the cap rock of Meacham Hill (Segment 23) are ee basalt lava flows of the Sonoma Volcanics (Fox, et al., 1973). c) Geomorphology. As the area was again uplifted, the meandering channels of Stemple and Americano Creeks were initiated on the "mudflats" of the Merced bay bottom as it emerged above sea level. Continuing uplift was accompanied by down-cutting of the drainages, deeply incising them through the entire thickness of Merced sediment and into the underlying Franciscan melange. The last great ice age, 10 to 25 thousand years ago, lowered sea level by about 300 feet, allowing further down-cutting *See Figure 10. Game Man mee ) ae »@ a : : ; : tr ‘ of) be wee (ig oa eke sila a me a 1 Nel a i mer y Gu - Aa ash AE iets is gl. » bre a onl iwi! } <2 ey 110 NN OS AY SS WRIA _ SEE FIGURE 3 FOR ALTE \V% ROUTE LOCATION . a YQ. SBP | De ZEN NG Ss NFS OV SOS wees Running Fence Slopes 0 2000” bl 50% or greater Leneenl FIGURE 9 SLOPES REFER TO FIGURE 3 FOR BASIC LEGEND Prepared by C. R. Davis, ESA \\ ABR NSA ee ct EE — a % — i ' eg Saw wh wee? US (0) LEWES ! 111 $4 ‘. , uw a ” A * ’ \ i oe fhe : . -_- a -* by ‘ ' A 7 é * a Ty aa x : mS s vy }' . i Geology FIGURE 10 Qls_ Landslide area Alluvium--sand, silt, cla Qal and gravel + EA tm BY ais Yh (> YEN SAGE A KOMI ah 4 Tm} i W\WSSZr' ms Tsa Sonoma Volcanics--andesitic ; to basaltic lava flows : Petaluma Formation--claystone; Tp siltstone, and pebble conglo- Wye; merate Wi Sa eo, Say 7 Qls. | Na Le > ceed Cee io MeN XQ @al_ AQ Ss KS : i : | ww a! Oe I @ \) ~ LN" Airs Yi Mia \ NCAA tm le 4 Ae ‘ ae 4 te Sen v wk © NTENTATIVE LOCATIONS i= SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER | % 57 AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL © 114 geology con't. Merced(?) Formation--massive fine-grained sandstone and siltstone Wi, Franciscan Assemblage--sheared Kits/ shale and sandstone with chert i and greenstone fo~—~ Formation Contact Tm fo. 7 eS EI OS RK = = AW fi: 7, To AY AS AWN NI ah *S SQ) " yy = YS i: +S as A Ne. A \ i Mi ‘ip nt A AN Qal WARN Compiled by C. R. Davis, ESA, from Travis Fox, et al., 1973; Miller, et al. photo interpretation and field re WO UN ee \ ! oe mA Sra | L roe ean PENS ae Geology con't. memes FU] t--dashed where approximate, mu ewe em @ © dotted where concealed Soil Constraints Potentially weak soil 2] Shallow soil underlain by DS2:4 hard rock ips AY eres MIs \\ \ WAY \Y wr N N WN) yo , 1949; Blake, et al., 1971; » 1972; Armstrong, 1974; with aerial connaissance. <> 0 2000' ree FIGURE 10 GEOLOGY AND SOILS REFER TO FIGURE 3 FOR BASIC LEGEND Qo =m SP de “1 |X i — SN ONL 1, er [re ttt) J Speen 7 TUE? eater a4 & & Wee as —— Brees, ion Monee tigass rs a a nla ahi sigh e.oun! TA" 85 = Roe Any tel RS ‘= arrh / ‘tect (thassyont ; 7 Se eee . ‘ae Kos Vodr 5 sanlevoer ites 8 atiotesite >) ore helene gia 6 a aor ede mie’ wi foner ny ba®. ae ee é wrieGg y * a Fnl nd6a hurt ay of these streams. Return of sea level to its present state flooded the channels, creating the esteros we see today. Geomorphic processes active in the area today include sheet erosion, gullying, and landsliding.* These processes are most preva- lent on the weak, poorly consolidated and poorly drained Merced sediments. Overgrazing and cultivation during the last century has seriously accelerated these processes, as is evidenced by old fence lines on the Merced Formation which are now on mounds six inches to a foot above the surrounding ground. Most drainage-ways are severely gullied due to accelerated runoff, and most hillsides on the Merced Formation exhibit sheet erosion and slumping. The hillsides appear to be at or near the greatest angle of repose for these poorly consoli- dated sediments, which are commonly seen to be failing. Landsliding is prevalent at the coastal bluff where the sea is wearing it away at the base. Undercutting in the weak Franciscan melange leads to slumping on the upper slopes. The Fence route traverses a reasonably stable old slide on this bluff. Recent failure is not apparent, and the toe of the slide mass has not been seriously under- cut, suggesting that it may be inactive at this time. d) Surficial Deposits. Erosion on the upper slopes has provided sediment to fill the valley bottoms. The alluvium reflects the nature of the parent material and is composed of sand, silt, and clay. e) soils ss * The soils along the proposed Fenceroute vary according to underlying substrata, topography, and hydrologic conditions. In general, upland soils developed on the Merced and Franciscan Forma- tions west of Segment 18 are of the Steinbeck series. The Steinbeck soils are medium-textured, moderately-well-drained loams with clay loam subsoils. They occur on slopes from 2 to 50 percent and vary in depth from 20 to 60 inches, depending on position, slope, and erosion history. Steeper slopes and hill tops have experi- enced more erosion, so that soil depth is shallow. Permeabilities are moderate, and runoff is medium to rapid, creating a moderate to high erosion hazard. As an indication of engineering properties, these soils are described as having slightly hard, friable and slightly plastic surface soils with slightly hard to hard friable and nonplastic *See Figure 10- **This section has been developed from the Sonoma County Soil Survey and the Marin County Soil Report, U.S. Department. of ’ Agriculture, 1972 and 1967 respectively (Miller et al., 1972; U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967). See also Armstrong, 1974, and Figure 10. W7 118 subsoils. These soils have agricultural capability classifications of from III to VI*, depending on depth of top soil and the extent of erosion. Steinbeck soils occupy approximately 75 percent of the proposed Fence route. Proceeding to the east from Segment 16 into the headwater areas of Americano and Stemple Creeks, the soils on the hills become some- what more sandy. Sebastopol series soils formed on the Merced and Franciscan Formations in this area are sandy loams. Occurring on slopes from 2 to 30 percent, the sandy loam surface soil is thin, with a deep sandy clay loam subsoil to a depth of 43 inches. This subsoil is hard, firm, and plastic when wet. The soils being well- drained, runoff is slow to rapid (depending on slope), and erosion hazard is slight to high. These soils are again classified as III to VIE. The soils in Segment 22 are developed on the Petaluma Formation and are quite sandy. These Cotati series soils on 2 to 5 percent slopes have moderately deep fine sandy loam surface soil underlain at a depth of about 22 inches by clay subsoil which is very hard, very firm, and very plastic when wet. These soils being only moder- ately well-drained, with slow permeability in the subsoil, runoff is medium to rapid with moderate to high erosion hazard. Agricultural capability classification is III and IV. The easternmost end of the proposed route is on Toomes rocky loam. This soil is developed on and underlain at a depth of 5S to 20 inches by shattered and weathered andesitic basalt lava flows which form Meacham Hill. Permeability is moderate with slow to medium run- off and slight to moderate erosion hazard. This is very poor soil, having an agricultural capability classification of VII (marginal rangeland). One other soil type is found in the valley bottoms along Ameri- cano and Stemple Creeks. The proposed route approaches or crosses each of these drainages twice. Blucher series soils have formed in these areas from stream-deposited fine sand, silt, and clay. Slopes are from 0 to 5 percent. Surface soils are fine sandy loam and clay loam to a depth of about 34 inches, underlain by silty clay loam subsoil which is very hard and firm but moist and plastic for much of the year. Permeability is slow, but gentle slopes produce slow runoff and a slight erosion hazard. This is prime agricultural soil, with a classification of II. *III = moderately good cropland IV = good pasture land V and VI = good rangeland Current agricultural use of the soils along the proposed Fence route is grazing and dry grain production, although Sebastopol series soils are suitable also for orchards and vineyards, and Blucher series soils are suitable for orchard and row crops. f) Faults and Seismicity. The proposed project would span most of the block between two major active fault zones in the San Francisco Bay Region* The San Andreas Fault Zone, the contact of the drifting North American Conti- nental plate with the Pacific oceanic plate, passes about ¥% mile offshore of the proposed coastal site. This section of the San Andreas moved some 20 feet in the great earthquake of 1906. At the eastern end of the proposed route in Segment 21, the route would cross the Tolay Fault, a potentially active branch of the Hayward Fault system. The route would cross three additional inactive faults. The Americano Fault crosses Segment 14, the Bloomfield Fault crosses Segment 17 twice where fault and route are roughly parallel for % mile, and again in Segment 18, and the Dunham Fault crosses the route at Segment 20. These faults are all aligned with the San Andreas and trend northwest (Jennings, 1973; Fox, et al., 1973; Travis, 1949). Major faults in the region (Jennings, 1973) which could cause potentially damaging levels of ground-shaking in the project area include, but are not necessarily limited to, the Healdsburg-Rogers Creek and San Andreas Faults. The Healdsburg-Rogers Creek Fault lies approximately 4% miles to the east of the easternend of the Fence route, while the San Andreas Fault, as noted, lies about ¥% mile to the west of the western end of the land portion of the Fence route. The project area lies within a portion of the San Francisco Bay Region that has experienced moderate seismic activity. In the past 160 years, the area has been shaken 11 to 15 times with sufficient - force to potentially produce damage ranging from cracked plaster and broken windows to partial collapse of unreinforced masonry structures (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1972). In addition, the 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault shook this area hard enough to destroy or severely damage most masonry structures and even some well-constructed wooden ones. g) Natural Resource Base. There are two basic types of physical natural resources present in any given area. The first is the land itself, while the second is the material present beneath the land's surface. The land within the project area can be considered moderately to highly valuable from an agricultural standpoint. U.S. Soil Con- servation Service Land Capability Classifications range from Class II }}9 *See Figure 10. 120 (prime) to Class VII (suitable for range) with most of the land being Class III to VI [suitable for dry grain and pasture (range) ]. No known economically significant subsurface materials are known to exist in the project area, although gold, mercury, quartz, and rock have been recovered from this area in the past (Travis, 1949; California Division of Mines and Geology, 1949). Impacts The geologic "impacts" of a project can be divided into two categories: impacts and hazards. Impacts are those changes which the proposed project may induce in the geologic conditions of the site. Hazards are those problems which the geology of the site may pose for the proposed project. a) Topography. The proposed project would involve no topographic modification, but the topography could affect implementation of the project. Slopes greater than 50 percent would preclude the direct use of vehicles for installation and would require hand work or a modified technique. Slopes greater than 50 percent are shown on Figure 9. The slope interval between 25 percent and 50 percent brackets the ''angle of repose'' for loose soils; that is, the angle above which loose soils tend to slide.* Thus, this interval defines the portion of the Fence route in which care must be taken during construction to prevent further erosion (induced by the project). b) Bedrock. This project would have no impact on bedrock, but Meacham Hill is capped by shallow hard rock which could hinder the project. See the subsection on "Soils, following, for a discussion of this hazard and its mitigation. c) Geomorphology. The only place along the proposed route where the project could potentially significantly affect land-shaping processes is at the coastal bluff. The route would pass down a major landslide to reach the ocean. It is conceivable that the installation could leave depressions in the soil surface which would serve to trap water and allow it to percolate. An increase in the water content of the slide mass could hasten its movement downslope into the sea. The remainder of the route has been so located that no other landslides would be Sane = ee Gasene - . - . Strictly speaking, this concept applies only to loose, "cohesion- less" soils. The local soils are somewhat cohesive, because of their clay content. crossed. Field reconnaissance of the route in Segment 11 confirmed that the staked route is indeed upslope of the landslides on this north face. The corrected alignment on the base map reflects this field verification. Erosion processes are discussed separately under "Water Resources", following. d) Soils. The potential impacts on the soils of the area which could result from implementation of the proposed project would be associated first with vehicle traffic over the grass lands and second with the direct disturbance of the soil by the actual installation. The first effect from vehicular traffic could compact the soil or actually cause ruts from heavy vehicle tires. This impact would be most severe when the ground is moist or wet. The second effect could mix the soil colum, reducing surface soil fertility while exposing the soil to other impacts. This could result from posthole digging (punching), place- ment or removal of anchors, or failure of the ground, allowing pull- ing out of anchors, and tipping over of posts. Soil properties or characteristics could impose hazards to the proposed project. Digging of post holes and placement of anchors to a depth of 36 inches could be hindered by hardpan or shallow bedrock, and weak soil conditions at that depth could provide insufficient strength to support the structure. As noted above, the low-lying soils adjacent to the principal creeks are clayey and wet much of the year. These soils may have poor strength and may not provide good support for the proposed structure. On the other hand, Meacham Hill is covered by only 5 to 20 inches of soil underlain by hard igneous rock; this could pose special problems for the placement of posts and anchors. (See Figure 10). e) Faults and Seismic Hazards. The project would cross the potentially active Tolay Fault, but could in no way affect the activity of this fault. While this is a seismically active region and a major or great earthquake is antici- pated, the probability of such an event's occurring during the life of this project is extremely low. If such an event were to occur, the structure would probably not be seriously damaged. Perhaps some cables would part or some anchors might be pulled out of the ground, but the life risk associated with failure would be negligible. f) The Natural Resource Base. As there are no known economic mineral deposits along the route, and since an insignificant amount of soil would be disturbed, there is only one potential resource impact. The project would use steel for cables, poles and anchors, and plastic fabric for the curtain.* Petroleum would be consumed in construction and viewing. See Energy 12] Section, above. *Mostly surplus material, already available. 122 Mitigation a) Topography. Construction plan methodology specifies that vehicles shall not be driven on slopes in excess of 50 percent. Installation and re- moval will be accomplished in these areas either by hand or by using a second vehicle to winch the construction vehicle into position without putting power to the wheels. This will prevent any wheel spinning which could have erosional consequences. Even in handwork involving the powered moto-mule, the equipment would be winched up and down steep slopes to prevent these impacts. In the 25 to 50 per- cent slope interval, decisions about construction methods should be made by an engineer on-site at the time of construction. b) Geomorphology. There should be no impact on the coastal landslide's stability from the project since under actual project plans, no depressions will be left to act as water traps. Backfilling and revegetation measures. included in the project will leave the surface essentially undisturbed. Vehicles will not be driven in this area and therefore no disturbance will result from this cause. Since rates of infiltration or runoff will not be affected, slide-prone areas downslope of the route will experience no change in stability. C) sons. Mitigation which has been developed and included as part of the project plan willminimize any of the soil impacts and hazards dis- cussed above. The vehicles to be used would be equipped with 4-wheel drive and wide, flotation-type tires to minimize soil pressures and erosion from wheel spinning. To avoid damage to moist soils, early work can begin on higher ground, which dries sooner. The engineering design and methodology is so conceived as to make soil disturbance insignificant. Special equipment developed for this project will punch a minimum sized posthole for the main oles, thus limiting the amount of disturbance. Anchors would be riven directly into the ground, so that excavation and soil disruption would not be necessary. Areas inaccessible to the truck-mounted equipment would require manual installation, but the methodology would be similar and would result in no more soil disturbance. Further, plans for removal of the structure include filling and seeding of the post holes; anchors would not be removed (which would require considerable disturbance of the soil), but covered by backfilling. Soil hazards to the project (with resulting impacts) have also been considered in the design and methodology. Three types of anchors, which will be suitable for rock, average, or soft soil conditions, have been designed. In addition, the method of placement calls for driving the anchor 10 inches below design depth and then "setting" it by partial withdrawal. If the anchor moves up more than 10 inches under a measured load, additional anchors (up to a total of four) would be placed at each point to achieve the designed strength. Also, the system has been designed for "controlled" failure (panel separation) at points other than anchors and post holes; since anchor holding power will be measured on installation, it is highly unlikely that the structure will fail at these points and cause soil - disturbance impacts/hazards. d) -Natural Resources. The materials to be used to construct the Fence will be given to the landowners ,who will use it on their ranches or sell it as surplus at the end of the project,and thus they will not be lost. Petroleum will be consumed in implementation of the project.* Fuel will be expended by persons travelling to view the project.* ea aaa . . . For estimates of consumption, see Energy Section above. 123 124 3. | WATER RESOURCES Setting a) Drainage. The proposed project route would cross several drainages. The area immediately adjacent to the coast drains directly to the sea. The 1500 feet of the route that is closest to the coast is in the 15-acre area which drains over the landslide to be traversed to reach the ocean. The next 10,000 feet would follow the drainage divide between two unnamed minor drainages leading to the sea. From this point to Segment 16, the route would be in the Americano drainage basin, crossing that creek twice and running along the Stemple/ Americano drainage divide for 3000 feet in Segment 13. In Segment 16, the route crosses into the Stemple Creek basin and follows the north side of that drainage to its headwaters near Stony Point. Three thousand feet of Segment 22 pass through the Laguna de Santa Rosa basin (tributary to the Russian River). The route then enters the Petaluma River drainage basin on Meacham Hill. b) Runoff. The bedrock and subsoils in this area are generally quite impermeable, resulting in relatively rapid runoff in spite of the gentle slopes. Overgrazing of the rangeland is nearly universal in the area, contributing significantly to the rate of runoff. Numerous small stock-watering impoundments have been created on the inter- mittent streams throughout the area in order to capture some winter runoff for summer use. c) Erosion and Sedimentation. Rapid runoff over the poorly vegetated hillsides of the area has caused serious erosion in the form of gullying and rilling. The sediment produced is carried downstream into impoundments or to the Esteros. The natural process of filling these intertidal areas to become marsh has been accelerated by the poor land management in the watersheds. d) Groundwater. Although wells exist in this area, groundwater is not plentiful. Webster (1972a) shows this area to be about half in zone A and half in zone B,* indicating that water well yields would probably be no worse than marginal to adequate for stock or single family domestic use. *Category A: "Marginal to adequate for stock or Single family use, 0.5 to 5 gallons per minute." Category B: "Adequate for stock or single family use, but inade- quate to marginal for light industrial use, 5 to 50 gallons per minute. ' e) Water Quality. The quality of the groundwater in the area has not received extensive study; however, one data point at Salmon Creek, a similar area nearby, indicates nitrate levels have been high enough to be harmful to infants (Webster, 1972b). Surface water quality also is not well characterized, but the large numbers of livestock kept in the area certainly contribute considerable quantities of nutrients to the runoff. Some stream channels which were still wet in late summer were noted to be eutrophic (containing visible quantities of algae), an indication of excessive nutrients. Impacts Since this project would traverse a number of watersheds, any impacts on local water resources would not be concentrated in a Single area. Any effects of the project as proposed, however, would be negligible. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1975), after studying the most sensitive portion of the route, the Coastal Zone,* concluded: e Proposed Fence placement and removal procedures are extremely safe and conservative, and far surpass the average standard of care existing today in any fence project. e Placement of the Christo Fence will not cause surface soil erosion in any manner. 8 There will be no erosion impact on the Estero de San Antonio or on the adjacent sea cliffs and bluffs. * e If public viewing is limited to existing roads, in accordance with the Christo public access plan,*** there is no risk of soil erosion due to public activity. A few hundred accidental excursions would not alter this conclusion. These conclusions may be extended with high confidence to the rest of the route, particularly when viewed in thecontext of the normal farm-vehicle activities on the ranches along the route. Water quality could possibly be adversely affected by the wastes from the potentially large numbers of people visiting the area to view the project. *Refersto the original route, entering the ocean at the mouth of Estero de San Antonio, generally a more sensitive location than the currently proposed point of entry. 125 **The "Christo public access plan" no longer applies, as it refers to a concept and a location that are no longer part of the project plan. 126 Mitigation Elements of the project design and methodology will mitigate potential impacts to the region's water resources: a) Runoff. Rates of runoff will not be affected by this activity because the use of wide flotation-type tires and the planned construction during the dry season will prevent compaction of the ground. For the same reasons, impacts on vegetative cover which could otherwise increase runoff also will not be significant. b) Erosion and Sedimentation. Since rates of runoff will not be increased by this activity, erosion rates will also not be affected thereby. Disturbance of the soil could expose it to erosion, but structure removal plans call for backfilling the post holes and seeding of disturbed areas, with placement of jute matting to stabilize the surface where necessary (i.e., on slopes) until revegetation takes place. Thus, there will be no increase in erosion rates as a result of this project. c) Water Quality. The potential impact on water quality from additional people in the areawould be mitigated by the provision of portable chemical toilets. This measure should be effective it they are provided in sufficient numbers, placed at strategic locations, and receive the required maintenance. 4... AIR QUALITY/METEOROLOGY Climate a) Setting. The proposed route of the Running Fence pierces the strong gradients of wind, temperature, rainfall, and cloud cover that pro- duce the unique coastal climate of northern California. The break in the coastal hills made by Americano and Stemple Creeks provides a conduit through which cool marine air moves eastward to meet and mingle with another air stream moving northward from San Pablo Bay. During the trip eastward and northward, these air streams are sub- jected to intense solar radiation which quickly modifies their marine characteristics and produces the remarkably strong climatic gradients of Sonoma County. Wind motion carries air over and past the route of the Fence. Along the coast, the prevailing summer wind blows from the northwest. At the least-sheltered coastal locations, the average hourly wind speed in May and June reaches 30 miles per hour between 6 PM and midnight. By September, the maximum average hourly wind has decreased to about 20 miles per hour but the late afternoon and evening is still the most blustery period (California Department of Water Resources, 1971). The eastern portion of the Fence route lies in a region that experiences lighter southerly and southwesterly summer winds. In contrast to the coastal zone, average daytime wind velocities here (hourly averages are not available) are only between five and six miles per hour and even these modest levels decrease slightly during September and October (BAAPCD unpublished data). Peak wind gust data are not available for any portion of the Fence route. However, gust data are available for the San Francisco International Airport site, which occupies a lowland exposure compar- able to those of the Fence route with respect to the marine flow. The airport data will supply a gross indication of the possible gust environment of the central portion of the Fence route near Bloomfield, which is about as far inland as the San Francisco Airport is from the coast. During the 18-year period 1948-1965, the maximum gust for each month occurred as follows: Month Peak Gust* (mph) Month Peak Gust* (mph) January 78 July 47 February 64 August 49 March 58 September 56 April 60 October 64 May 62 November 67 June 58 December 66 127 *Source: National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina, (Air Weather Service, undated). 128 In the same 18-year period, one-minute average wind speeds (in con- trast to instantaneous peak gusts) greater than 31 miles per hour were recorded during 0.1 percent of the September observations. The route of the Fence traverses an area that is normally sub- jected to a strong temperature gradient during the warmer months. Average September afternoon temperatures along the immediate coast are in the upper 60's while inland areas between Petaluma and Santa Rosa experience September afternoon temperatures in the low 80's (Miller, et al., 1972). The Fence route also crosses a Significant rainfall gradient that gives a mean annual rainfall of 39 inches to the coastal end of the route and 22 inches to the eastern end (U.S. Geological Survey, 1971). Detailed, long term rainfall data for Santa Rosa are available which are representative of rainfall conditions along the central portion of the Fence route. Annual rainfall contour maps indicate that Santa Rosa and the center of the Fence route experience the same amount of precipitation, with Cotati drier and Petaluma more so. These data (see Table 3 ) indicate that 87 percent of the annual precipitation falls during the six months from November through April, thereby producing a well-defined dry season during the remainder of the year. On the average, the three driest months are July, August, and September. However, anomalously heavy rainfall amounts have been recorded in all seasons; the data indicate that the early and late portions of the dry season are susceptible to invasions of weather that more properly belong to the wet season. The record 9.47 inches that fell in October 1962 illustrate how quickly the dry season can be displaced. At the western end of the Fence route, where mean rainfall amounts are considerably higher, the maximum daily and maximum monthly values are also expected to be higher. Similarly, the maximum daily and monthly values at the drier eastern end of the route are expected to be lower. However, the mean number of days with precipi- tation .10 inch or greater will not differ significantly from one end of the route to the other (U.S. Geological Survey, 1971). Fog and low cloudiness frequents the coastal portion of the Fence route and occasionally penetrates areas to the east by follow- ing the lowlands of the Estero Americano. July and August are the foggiest months but no month is completely fog free. b) Impact. By pulling and tugging at the fabric, the wind environment of the Running Fence will have an important influence on the structure's appearance. The prevailing westerly and northwesterly winds will push the fabric southeastward along that portion of the Fence that lies west of the Highway 1/Petaluma-Valley Ford Road intersection. TABLE 3 RAINFALL MEANS AND EXTREMES, SANTA ROSA, 1931-1973 (INCHES). Average Maximum Maximum Mean Number of Days Monthly Daily Monthly Rainfall 0.10" or More - January 6.02 Sai 15.38 9 February Se15 4.20 l2e31 8 March 3.98 3.04 8.03 7 April 233 2.97 7.61 4 May 98 1.39 3.95 2 June eae 1.08 1.94 1 July .02 a20* ~20* < 1/2 August 06 Vas 1.68 < 1/2 September ney 2.82 3-16 < 1/2 October 1.54 2539 9.47 3 November 2.94 eed 13.23 5 December 5.64 4.33 17.89 8 Source: U.S. Weather Bureau, 1974. *Note: In July 1974, 1.61 inches was recorded, nearly all of which fell in a 24-hour period. 129 Between this point and the Pepper Road-Meacham Road intersection, the alignment of the Fence will cause a fluttering or ruffling of the fabric similar to that of a luffing sail. The remaining eastern extremity of the rence lies, for the most part, approximately perpen- dicular to the prevailing southerly wind flow. Along this section, the fabric will most commonly be bowed to the north of the Fence line. The maximum gust record for San Francisco International Airport* pre- sented in the Climate Setting Section gives an indication of the extreme winds to which the Fence may be subjected. The difficulties inherent in applying these data to all portions of the Fence route are obvious. In particular, areas immediately adjacent to the coast and on exposed ridge tops can be expected to have significantly higher maximum gusts than those observed at San Francisco International Airport, which is about 10 miles inland from the coast. However, the general annual trend of weaker gusts in summer and stronger gusts in winter illustrated by these data is expected to be valid along the entire route. This trend information indicates that the most wind-sensitive period of the project will occur during September, when the probability of gusts of more than 50 mph is increasing (see Appendix N for summary of wind tests conducted by applicant's engineers). Work on the Fence will face the greatest probability of weather (rain) interference during the initial construction (April) and the removal (October) periods. Even though April is the transition month between the wet and dry seasons, the historic record shows that very heavy rains have fallen in this month (see Table 3 ). Copious rainfall amounts at this time of the year can seriously aggravate runoff and soils problems because they occur at the end of a 6-month period during which more than 2 feet of rain is likely to have fallen.** The 43-year record for 1931 through 1973 shows that a total monthly rainfall greater than 3 inches occurs in about 1 out of 4 Aprils. October is also a transition month; however, when unusually heavy October rains occur, they fall upon soils desiccated by the summer drought. A total monthly rainfall greater than 3 inches occurs in about 1 out of 5 Octobers and in about 1 out of 2 Novembers. The reader is reminded that the above discussion and Table 3 are directly applicable only to the central portion of the Fence where the average annual rainfall is approximately 30 inches. Con- struction activities along the western segments will face a higher probability of interference by rainfalls of greater intensity while activities along the eastern segments will face a lower probability of the intensities predicted for the central segments. a i a,from where the only local records are available. This discussion applies to potential interferences and impacts. The likely situation is discussed under Water Resources above. c) Mitigation. See Section mm Project Description-Technical Description, and Appendix N for engineering testing of Fence panels. The system is designed so that the panels will separate from the top cables and the poles and, thus, lie on the ground if winds arise at high enough velocity to otherwise tear the materials or pull out the poles. Note that testing of Running Fence was done at full scale. One project, Christo's Valley Curtain, did not conform to engineering expectations. However, the great size of Valley Curtain (width: 1250-1368 feet, height: 185-365 feet, precluded anything but scaled-model testing (Christo, 1973). If rainfall in April 1976 is unusually high, construction work on wet areas and the western end of the Fence route could be delayed to avoid damage to soils and vegetation. Air Quality a) Setting. The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) maintains two air quality monitoring stations near the eastern portion of the Fence route, one in Petaluma and the other in Santa Rosa. Oxidants only are sampled at the Petaluma site, while the full range of air pollutants (oxidants, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulates) is sampled at Santa Rosa. A combined summary of the 1973 and 1974 monitoring experience is pre- sented in Table 4 for those contaminants that exceeded federal or state air quality standards. Violations of the nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide standards did not occur during this period. The oxidant violations at both stations occurred, as would be expected, during the summer and early fall oxidant season when intense sunlight and restricted ventilation combine to carry the photochemical smog reaction to its annual peak. Comparison with other BAAPCD loca- tions indicates that, while oxidants are a problem in the Santa Rosa- Petaluma area, they are not present in the concentrations or frequencies observed in much of the rest of the Bay Area. In contrast to oxidants, the carbon monoxide violations occurred in the late fall and winter period. High concentrations of this pollutant are promoted by the weakening wind flows and nighttime radiation inversions common to this time of year. The suspended particulate annual geometric mean indicates that Santa Rosa is among the least dusty locations in the entire Bay region. The BAAPCD monitoring data discussed above are, of course, relevant only for the eastern portion of the Fence route between Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The less-developed and less-traveled western portion, particularly the section within several miles of the Coast, undoubtedly experiences less polluted air than does the Petaluma- )3, Cotati valley. Violations of the ambient air quality standards along this part of the route are probably rare occurrences. "GL6L Pue pZ6Ll “dIdvWd :ad4NosS (*potuad ay} Hbultunp papasoxe swareu seM--UOL| [LW 4ad Squed GE--0) UO} Puepueys unoy-auo ayj) “UOL[ [LW wad Squed UL anj[eA abeuare 4Anou-jyubia ysayHLy ayy St ,wnwixew, ‘apLxOuOW UOqued 4O4 “UOLL [LW PaupuNny sad Squed uL passaudxa anjea abeuade Ajunoy ysaybiy ay} st ,wnwixew,, ‘yUuepLXxO UOJ +:9330N Ri ee =O €2 vl euin | e}ad cv € 9°6 Sl Gil esoy e7URS (4aqay “ng papaaoxz purpueys win Lx PW papaaaxj puepueys winw Lx ey UOL}e1S /swesBoudtW) uray apLxouow uoque) ap LxouoW qUPPLXQ | ePUOLZEN quPpLxo Lenuuy a3eNnd | PUOLZEN uoque) sheg 40 uaquny -1q4eg papuadsns skeq $0 saquny pL6L GNY €Z6L--JONITYAdXI JLVINIILYVd ASGN3dSNS ANV “J3CIXONOW NOSUWI *LNVGIXO pb 31avl 132 b) Impact. i. Construction Period. During the construction period, the principal air quality impact will be caused by fugitive dust emissions from soil disturbances (pole and anchor placement) and off-road vehicle usage. Emission factors for the placement of the poles and anchors are not available; this lack prevents quantification of the impact of this activity, which is expected to be small compared to that from off-road vehicle usage in general. However, preliminary work on fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads is available and appears in Table 5 . Note that the emission output is dependent upon the vehicle miles traveled and the average vehicle speed. Note also the sharp increase in emissions per vehicle mile at speeds above 25 miles per hour (PEDCo- Environmental Specialists Inc.; 1973)’. TABLE 5 DUST EMISSIONS FROM UNPAVED ROADS Average Emissions Vehicle (Pounds/ Speed (mph Vehicle Mile) Ss 0.81 25 1.18 35 2.47 40 4.20 These emission factors describe the dust emissions from dry, unpaved surfaces. If Fence construction begins in April, the hillsides will most likely still be moist from the winter rains which may, indeed, still be falling. Vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces at that time would therefore produce much less dust than indicated in Table 5 .* Vehicle disturbances during June, July, and August would realize the *As noted under "Soils"; however, construction should not be encouraged under such conditions. 133 134 full dust-producing penne” Construction activities performed in September, such as the hanging of the fabric panels, will take place after (during) the summer drought and during the period when the probability of measureable rainfall is increasing. Dust production will then be dependent upon the occurrence of the first rains of the new wet season. In no event are area suspended-particulate standards likely to be exceeded because of the project. Localized dust generation will be similar to that produced by off-road farm vehicles in normal use. ji. Removal Period.* Removal of the Fence will cause dust to be emitted from the same sources that were described in the paragraphs above. Total dust emission, however, may be lower during the removal period for two reasons. First, the removal of the poles and the abandonment of the anchors will cause less disturbance of the soil than did their installation. Second, while the installation of the Fence will encom- pass the heart of the dry season from April to September, the removal will take place from mid-September through October, which is a period of rapidly increasing rainfall probabilities. 1ii. Viewing Period. The greatest air quality impact during the viewing period will be caused by the exhaust emissions from the thousands of auto- mobiles expected to visit the Fence route. The amounts of pollutants emitted from this source are dependent upon the number of vehicles and their average speed. For carbon monoxide, a primary pollutant with an immediate environmental impact (when released in high enough concentrations and quantities), the emission rate per mile traveled rises as the average vehicle speed drops, reaching a maximum under stop-and-go conditions. The environmental concentration of a given pollutant (and therefore its jfmpact) is dependent upon additional dilution-controlling climatic factors, such as wind speed and atmospheric stability. On the basis of the weekend visitor demand projections and the vehicle distributions (Appendix K) and the calculation method recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (1974), carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated for the busiest afternoon hour at selected points along the trafficway (see Table 6 ). These estimates include carbon monoxide generated by combined Fence and non-Fence weekend traffic along these roads but do not include carbon monoxide drifting in from distant traffic sources. Conservative climatic parameters were assumed for the calculations. Nevertheless, the values in Table 6 are far below the on-hour national ambient air quality standard of 35 parts per million and well below *Presented out of normal order for continuity of technical presentation. the 8-hour standard of 9 parts per million. Therefore, given the good dilution characteristics of September afternoons and the rela- tively low ambient background levels of carbon monoxide--particularly along the western portion of the Fence route--it is highly unlikely that the Running Fence traffic will cause violations of the national standards for carbon monoxide. For the locations specified in Table 6, this is true even if there are intermittent traffic jams aiong area roadways. TABLE 6 PEAK HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION LOCATION (parts/million) Highway 101 1.4 (100 feet from roadway ) Stony Point Road eel (30 feet from roadway) West Railroad Avenue <i] (30 feet from roadway) Pepper Road < ] (30 feet from roadway) Valley Ford Road/Highway 1 lees (30 feet from roadway) Unburned hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen are other components of auto exhaust emissions. Upon exposure to sunlight, they form secondary pollutants known as oxidants (photochemical smog.). The photochemical reaction requires several hours to reach equilibriun, during which time the mixture is transported far from the emission areas by the wind flow. The extreme complexity of the photochemical reactions and the lack of a generally accepted simplified computation method prevent an exact quantitative conclusion regarding the impact of the Running Fence traffic on smog levels. However, since a large percentage of the smog in the Bay Area is believed to be caused by exhaust emissions, a qualitative feel for the importance of the Fence 135 136 traffic can be obtained by comparing vehicle miles traveled for Fence and non-Fence activities. Such a comparison indicates that Fence traffic will constitute less than one percent of the total vehicle miles traveled in the Bay Area on a heavy viewing day (30,000 visitors). It therefore appears that the Fence traffic will have only a very small, and probably unmeasurable, impact on the smog level in the air basin. c) Mitigation. The particulate (dust) impact could be reduced by eliminating unnecessary trips over unpaved surfaces, by water spraying these surfaces whenever the number of vehicle trips makes spraying worth- while, and by keeping vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour. Mitigation of the slight auto exhaust impacts detailed above will depend upon the elements proposed in the Traffic Management Plan. Elements that increase the average vehicle speeds (i.e., one- way roads, flagmen, publicity that contains travel instructions) or that reduce the number of autos (i.e., mass transit options) will also serve to reduce the not-very-significant air quality impact. Die NOISE Setting The present sources of noise in the region that would be traversed by the proposed Fence are varied in nature. They range from artificial, introduced sources such as garbage-disposal activities and farm operations, to natural sources like flowing water and waves breaking on the shore. In an overall area-wide sense; the main noise sources involved are cattle, turkeys, birds, gurgling streams, and wind in the grass and trees. However, in the vicinity of the roadways, vehicular traffic is an important source of noise also. The sound levels experienced throughout the region are, in general, relatively low. Median daytime noise levels in over half this area probably lie under 40 dBA.*>»** In nearly all the remainder, the current levels experienced appear to lie well below 60 dBA.*** The two main exceptions occur in those locations immediately bordering U.S. 101 and the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road section of Highway 1. In both these instances, median daytime noise levels during at least some portions of the week will exceed 65 dBA at the closest residential structures. Sites at which such levels occur are deemed unacceptable for residential use by the Department of Housing and Urban Development unless special noise reduction measures are incorporated into the design of the development (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1971). *dBA: The decibel reading obtained from a sound measurement instrument with a frequency response similar to that of the human ear. A 1-dBA change in noise level is just discernible to a trained listener in a laboratory situation. However, a 2- to 3-dBA change is needed to be perceivable to most people under normal conditions. A 10-dBA increase in sound level corresponds roughly to a perceived doubling of noise. **This background noise level was estimated from the data on rural sound levels presented in Wyle Laboratories (1971). ***This judgment is based on calculated noise levels in the vicinity of the roadways crossing the region. 137 138 Impact The new sources of noise introduced by the proposed project will be temporary but numerous. The noise produced can, on the basis of the basic underlying activity involved, be divided into two distinct categories: construction/removal noise, and "viewing" noise. i. Construction/removal noise: The sources of noise introduced by the proposed project during the approximately 5-month-long construc- tion and 1-month-long removal periods would be varied in nature. They would include 6 three-quarter-ton trucks, 1 flat-bed truck, several moto-mules, and 4 sets of hole-punching and anchor-installing equip- ment.* Probably the noisiest activity during either of the periods under discussion would be the hole-punching/anchor-installing operation. This work could perceivably raise the daytime energy equivalent sound levels** experienced in areas as distant as 2300 feet (line-of-sight exposure) or 800 feet (shielded exposure) from the actual construction site.+ It may, in addition, produce sound levels at distances of 400 feet for unshielded exposures or 100 feet for shielded ones that will strongly interfere with both outdoor and indoor residential site activities.++ Such interference would be similar to that pro- duced by road-paving operations taking place about 700 feet away or heavy grading activities occurring approximately 1400 feet away (unshielded exposure). In the proposed situation, the period through- out which activity interference may take place at any given residence would be rather short. Even for a unit located immediately next to the planned Fence, such interference would be experienced for at most 3 days during the entirety of the construction and removal periods. For most of the 20 to 30 residences so affected by construction noise @i.e., those within 400 feet of the Fence), the total period involved would be less than one day. On the other hand, the total duration of the period during which work on the Fence may be perceivable at a Single residence could range up to as much as 4 weeks, with intermittent operations of various kinds. *Personal and telephone communications with Mr. Burr Heneman, A&H Builders. **Energy-equivalent sound level: the constant sound level that would be experienced if the energy contained in the actually time- varying noise were released at a constant rate. +The distances presented here and in the remainder of this paragraph were calculated on the basis of noise level data presented in Bolt, Beranek § Newman (1971) or supplied by Mr. Burr Heneman, A&H Builders. Air absorption of sound was semi-quantitatively considered. _ ++This conclusion is based in part on the rough set of construc- tlon noise acceptability guidelines presented in Bolt, Beranek § Newman (1971). ii. 'Viewing'' noise: There would be several distinct sources of noise associated with the proposed project during the viewing period of up to two weeks. The most important one in an area-wide sense would be the generated vehicular traffic. On weekdays, such traffic could conceivably raise the daytime median noise levels experienced along the local viewing routes and Highway 1 south of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road from 5- to 23-dBA. As can be seen from Table 7 , the largest increases would occur along the roadways carrying the smallest amounts of existing traffic. Since present noise levels are lowest in these areas, the sound levels produced by the cited changes would all tend to fall between 60- and 68-dBA. All of the increases under discussion are of at least some significance, for all would be easily perceivable. However, those potentially experienced along Petaluma/Valley Ford Road and along Highway 1 south of Fallon/Two Rock Road are of the most importance. In these two instances, the sound levels produced could be high enough to interfere with residential site activities in areas within 30 to 50 feet of these roadways' centerlines.* Along Petaluma/ Valley Ford Road, fewer than 10 residences would potentially be affected. For Highway 1, the exact number involved is unknown. However, again, it is not expected to be large. The noise-level changes induced on Saturdays and Sundays by the generated vehicular traffic would be significantly smaller than those experienced during the week (see Table 7 )** This apparently paradoxical behavior results from the facts that: 1) the amount of traffic normally handled at this time of year on either of these days is about double that handled on a regular weekday; and 2) automobile noise levels go down as speed goes down, which occurs at higher traffic levels. None of the traffic noise level increases induced during the weekend period would produce sound levels high enough to interfere with residential site activities. Such interference, however, could be experienced due to congestion-associated noise (i.e., horn honking, vehicles start- ing and stopping, etc.) during the late afternoon along the more- heavily-travelled routes. One point about the previous discussion deserves special emphasis here. This is that it is in general based on a worst-case analysis of the situation involved. If fewer than the maximum number of visitor vehicles judged possible on a weekday (i.e., 8,300) or manageable on a weekend day (i.e., 10,000) arrive, the noise level changes induced would in most cases be smaller than those specified above. The one readily noticeable exception occurs in the case of Stony Poinv Road. There the weekend increase produced could actually be larger if fewer people come. Again, this is a result of the speed/noise rela- tionship. ni Gaus vena Slane . . - . . . This conclusion is based on the noise acceptability criteria and the category definitions presented in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1971) and Schultz (1971), respectively, ; 139 **Table 7 is based on traffic-setting information available in August 1975. 140 TABLE 7 NOISE IMPACT OF THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED Running Fence PROJECT* Typical Road Section** WESs WOl s/o* Old Redwood Highway s/o Railroad Ave. PETALUMA/ VALLEY FORD ROAD w/o Highway 1 I/St e/o Highway 1 I/S STONY POINT ROAD n/o Railroad Ave. MEACHAM ROAD s/o Stony Point Rd. PEPPER ROAD w/o Stony Point Rd. Present Median Day- time Noise Level *** (dBA) TN BoE 71/69 62/66 59/65 50/57 50/55 39/47 charts presented in Schultz (1971). noise level increases induced assume the maximum number daily visitors judged possible (i.e., 25,000 on weekdays, 30,000 on weekends). Temporary Project- Induced Change in Median Day- time Noise Level (dBA) eet +]/-2 +5/-1 +8/+4 +10/+2 +13/+9 +23/+17 Approximate Resultant Change in Perceived Noise None/Nonett None/None Readily Perceptible Increase/None 2-Fold Increase/ Perceptible Increase 2-Fold Increase/ None 3-Fold Increase/ 2-Fold Increase 5-Fold Increase/ 3-Fold Increase *Noise level evaluation based on traffic-volume/median-noise-level Traffic volumes used to determine Average traffic speed developed from estimated maximum traffic flow rates and level-of-service calculations. **Road sections selected listed in order of the amount of traffic presently carried. ***Approximate median noise level experienced during the period between 6 AM and 10 PM at the front of the closest residential structure to the trafficway cited. s/o indicates south of; w/o indicates west Os. EC. ttweekday/weekend noise levels. I/S=intersection. In addition to vehicular traffic, there are three other poten- tially important noise sources that could be associated with the proposed project. The first is people stopping to view the Fence. Any crowd noise they may produce would be limited to the vicinity of those areas where cars can be parked (i.e., road shoulders). The second source is aircraft bringing in persons who wish to observe the project from the air. This activity could increase the noise levels experienced not only in the region traversed by the Fence itself but also in those areas surrounding the several small airports present in this part of the Bay Region. The final source of noise involved is the Fence itself. Strong winds blowing parallel or sub-parallel to this structure (see Climate Section) could produce humming of guywires, flapping of fabric and/or ringing of metal fabric hooks against the metal fence poles. Mitigation a) Included as part of the proposed project. The applicant has already taken, or has indicated that he would take, several measures that will reduce the noise impacts of the proposed project.* These include selecting a sparsely inhabited area distant from the main centers of Bay Area population for the site of the Running Fence, employing off-duty Sheriff's deputies to keep viewing-traffic flowing smoothly, restricting the time the Fence would be up to a maximum of two weeks, limiting Fence construction and removal activities to daylight hours, and taking down the Fence early if the projected number of persons arriving exceeds the capacity of the road network involved. b) Suggested as possibilities by this report. Several additional measures could be taken to further reduce the noise impacts of the proposed project. These include modifying the equipment used in the Fence construction and removal operations so that it will produce the least amount of noise practicable, eliminating roadside parking in the vicinity of any residences involved, and further reducing the length of time the Fence is up. ** *In the development of the following paragraph, extensive use was made of personal communications with Christoand Jeanne-Claude Javacheff and Captain Eric Denton, California State Highway Patrol. **The last, of course, would mitigate a number of impacts. 141 PO cis! 5 | ae ; os / ; _ ‘ rT are * - . ; 4 nas 4 a : 7 Pi) ; my 7 i 7 wte rv) : ? - ' q ie - 7 i , ; y : y nee —si = Te rekanatiies: a 7 Se et ce aun tas : eC ; a i “ : "os “7, i The 7 5 7 = \’ : - ; 7 ofS chat Pee gains a my A ae - oa A “4 ts es ‘4 oi, : iD : ean ' : , (ae | we ; be. teh a BaD ie. a eis ee amidst 4p > oie ; ie, “Ale veashe » hy. - i rena ror Ho, ; “hy ee ge pt Riper Pal eth re hs ie at nd at nde aly” ay joe ee an * ote!) ie ve an i hat, 0.) oe ra Fr Eheke eins © rae (oi Ah ae ete & UhY Neary ihe a arnt wee I. One ne way ape! vy oy | Tass by; pNGE i ; aera, DAM aT we AMEE |S ae ay a oe & A es: 2m ao aired Pe ay w o- } “te a A, (ng = . ry . b . - - jt Pe i iis itr <r bg SF, Puig ies ae rs LGB. i's be shay . fin S mi: Shin! p tte A oe wt a hy le Petey 7 as panne ee ne al =f ay erent TS Ue FSi . 3 aa * ; oP ke | ’ ; , i: mn Sif. ne - i . rn : a) : * : . nb? oe ngee eae idl tis Tgh fay 4 - nde: pe a - Lee 7. eS. . ot ae ; 7 : : , nies Be et i he Oe, he Sur) fy ROA asineshs! ai, oath ee cit at ep 5 a hy ag : ~* a, (4 vir al : atin as oa a 1 tel Fact &—"! rs 4 ‘ ‘ — we ’ Be beat | . aL ae at oS a ico. : Prt 7 aye at a et) et aa ihe! i n° a9 Ri, “eat aba) ise 7 _ 2 fib ) ‘4 r ‘i 7 wv ’ 7 7 F a eine es ie 7 : 7. Ws oe Pers VY ie ah ce a s a ‘ - 7 th 5. 7 ’ ioe ae a ines o* atte. hula gd Wey) an ; 7 Mes ip 7 Briel aa he Calva is ee ae - : 7 eee, - athe. + a ry eee hy hi me 1 38 <a eestee Sa, a - ory > ne Coe cod 7°*.¢ aie ; ais 1 xP vee et A} 7 Pr nl araae He "me ae oy ibs iy i, rh: iin: fray Peay dine Pee eae ie? ade Ra wie at iy Ty, pa TARE O01) ae zi aye sate . ae le i he ee? at puna e eer ; : ; 4 ‘ a ‘. i a \ - = ¢ 7 Z , ca : eur | . WA thn Ss g ’ = ; 7 : § ca ’ ' : , 7 7 4 ' 7 "1 i - + iv : ‘ M oA “" is te 4.1 we erat; ie ifrvetts 12) * an’ pat heeds 5 , load 1 e ; ; 7 , an a pear’ « 2 ¢ r as ~ oD : mh ne 5 1 7 . ie . t Jn me 5 ; : - ; x be a4 ; a. © ih i ¥ eal} “<i ; a . ‘ ay.’ Ale t - oo Vor ‘a ry ; a : i ‘a r ; 7 = 7 . . i oy i 1 a ) - - in 7 - ' ‘a a 7 7 ' S » > ire - - 1 an III. IMPACT OVERVIEW A. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Traffic is the main (and probably the only) source of unavoid- able adverse environmental impact. The potential significant impacts include congestion and traffic noise, which would be temporary, and energy use. Late-summer weekend traffic to view the Fence may be great enough to slow down or stop traffic in the area of the Fence route. As many as 30,000 persons (10,000 autos) per day may travel the country road network and the freeway in the vicinity of the Fence during the two scheduled viewing weekends. Since the traffic for the most part will be kept to the public right-of-way, no permanent damage or impact is foreseen. Traffic should return to normal immediately after the removal of the fabric panels. Traffic congestion can be minimized if roads are closed to visitors' autos, and buses are substituted; or reduced somewhat if other mitigating measures are used as suggested herein. Nevertheless, a residue of (temporary) impact is almost certain to remain. B. | RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM IMPACT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Increased traffic, a local short-term impact*, will affect the county road network and freeway for a maximum period of two weeks in September, 1976, the viewing phase. Other traffic, during the construc- tion and removal phases, will not noticeably add to normal traffic in the Fence route area. All three phases--construction, viewing and removal-- constitute a period of seven months maximum which would be the time of any additional traffic impact, except for that added by inspecting and surveying during the permit and planning stages. *Which may, however, affect traffic movement as far south as Novato on Freeway 101, and beyond. 143 144 Noise may increase with traffic increase during the viewing phase*, and air quality will change (but not significantly) with addition of fuel pollutants. In addition, vegetation, if damaged by the construct- tion and removal activities and by the movement of the Fence's materials when in place,is expected to return to normal state within a few years. Therefore, the above impacts can be considered as local short-term impacts. These impacts would not interfere in the long-term with the land and its use, the functioning of the road network, or the lives of the residents. C. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The soil cores (3' x 4'') removed for placement of Fence poles and replaced with sand create an irreversible environmental change; one that is somewhat comparable to the usual farm operation of digging post holes for fences. Similarly, the metal guy anchors will be left in the ground, but these will be tamped down to a depth of at least 18 inches below the surface of the ground and the holes will be backfilled with sand. Thus, a total of several hundred per mile of Fence length will have been punched and back- filled. Grasses and herbs are expected to grow back to normal within a few years. The large-scale irreversible environmental change may very well be in the ideas and attitudes of people. Running Fence is an idea, as well as a physical object. Because of this idea, different people may become more aware of the dairy farm environment of southern Sonoma County and northern Marin County, and more sensitive to its beauty and preservation (see Community Attitudes Section). As an idea or an event, Running Fence will remain in the memories of all of those involved with the idea, whether they are sympathetic to the project or not. Also, Running Fence (and with it the Sonoma/Marin landscape) will be well recorded in film and book form. D, GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACT ; The event of the viewing of Running Fence, as well as all the information released on the project in the form of art reviews, lectures, and exhibitions, will have brought much attention (including *Where speeds are reduced as a result of heavier traffic, noise levels can drop. On the other hand, start-and-stop traffic, horn honking, etc. can raise noise levels. nationwide and worldwide) to the Sonoma/Marin dairy-farm landscape. The viewing phase of the Fence will also bring many visitors (up to 30,000 on a peak day), some of whom may be attracted by the numerous FOR SALE signs in the area. The low-quality agricultural soil, lack of water and sewer service, high land price, high taxes for non- agricultural-preserve land, and restrictions on building in the coastal zone, will tend to discourage land sales beyond the normal rate of such transactions. Thus growth (other than at current rates) is not a likely outcome of the project. 145 . a ; _ a ty it ai eat Ieee burg 3 ; “a: . } ; 7 . > ¢ ; a’ Fi 84 mic 1 5 AL . he ce) te hae ii iad Pinte 0 z : “a ; we cai © 7 | a A hott wi - 7 . 2 q i: o>, i § Sl i". j 7 455 4 i La! >) 7: ; eT ‘ho Boe ae eee ae.” 2 At ae 52 is fw heed ae 8 aie ay 1) ea - - 7 s ’ . ) ‘ } } } ia a ” 7a ee ys ay i-9 “Uke AM rae | 5 Le! ; i? mac i ae! “Ag ar ue 4 oe Iw w 1° : ; Tes ce Pe Geen he ell 2G a nf or ; Whe aa i. : 0 a py Pei WL pay? ; ried Gy : y 7 ; Ap* | _ a rere. i : oe) hig: iar : BE PV aL; Pe 7 ey nie ee hie 8975 . “2 7 a - : i o _ / a oP Pet) wai! Vow ae Ait ed LS Cad San Piet | ar Be! Ae. 6 io Whee +o ee Nidal ew etm A aS eT.) ae a } ‘ rj ire e ll, ey VAS AAW oc e's ~~ a f° ; } pies wa ge! wis Fel he i‘ ce ¥G J ) 7 ‘ ; ‘i> * ah ys y rus \ ; p : a a Satie A Biase Saye! ty ep iper yt 2 itera ; ines rk a! : Sew rabies r, 1 ( , uy, ra mie iy Welle 1s Lect! 7 ng a 4 I es “HATE ai Qtahieae’ Ot. papas | 6 Seek fpr eran; * S j ; x ne: 7 we ve ji en | is ah TA As f ye a. rae \% im : ah a? i) <a. ee Te te ci ee Sige M79 Cis tc 2 or Sash 7A 7 a : ~~ x ioe” ee fr “ ss ; ou 7 ea Cite Ca mash rar tae ay Li Pate le, ee Sf Awa spree eon, C ed ALE 4 nv we 2 BET) AEE eT ee epee Pe, a. ves i ae av -. i) pie ‘ if pay vi ‘Meee eA ra eyenrre 7 is Ton i fat —te ie r ¢ DMA EA Sees o hari PAT” 3 Pel tog i. ae - : Paes A i : jl = f : ‘ | ay Ue | HT SF rue a : } pit i Pos Sige?) inks _ tl coe i” ayia als i ‘ y s A) wow é 1 : i: ; iy 4 , ra oe f ' ' i } re | ah iv ; . ; as ‘ii ; a 1 ne @ ‘ ; - ry 9 4 a oe IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT According to the applicant, any alternative that would appreciably change the route locations of Running Fence (except to avoid geologi- cally and ecologically sensitive areas) would reduce its artistic value. The route was originally selected by Christo on the basis of its concept as a whole--with a beginning and an end--interacting with road system, terrain, ownerships, and objects on the land. The local road system would provide intermittent viewing by the public of the Fence running over rolling grassy hillsides of two watersheds in front of or behind objects on the land such as large rows or groups of trees, fences, farms, towns, etc. Nevertheless, alternatives to the originally proposed route have already been selected or accepted as detailed below: NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This alternative implies that the Fence not be constructed in Sonoma/Marin Counties. All potential adverse environmental effects in the two counties would be removed. These include, in particular: (1) potential traffic congestion on peak viewing days; (2) potential impacts on ecological resources, particularly in the coastal zone. The applicant would suffer economic loss: much of the total expense to date. Economic gain to contracting landowners would be lessened (no supplies or materials); the same would be for county agencies (no gifts of construction equipment) . As much of the design, fabrication and testing have already been done, the Fence would probably be constructed elsewhere. Christo indicates that he has been invited to construct the Fence in Mexico, for example. Although the initial concept was conceived before selection of the site, the artist feels that a location other than Sonoma/Marin Counties (picked as most choice among several choices) would produce a less meaningful product. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE IN SAME LOCAL AREA In general, the major potential environmental impact, traffic congestion during viewing, is not likely to be reduced by minor 147 148 adjustments in the Fence route location. That is, there is no reason to believe that any other Fence route, of the same length, in the same general area, will have lesser traffic impacts (unless an alternative Fence route would cause the Fence to be out of view from the local road network, which is not possible). In part, this route has already been chosen to minimize other types of impacts; for example, it bypasses known landslide areas, and stays away as much as possible from areas with steep slopes. Traffic congestion in what appears to be one critical section of the Fence route which can be seen from Highway 101 could be mitigated by removal of the Fence segments on Meacham Hill and in the Stony Point Road area. This would eliminate congestion and possible accidents due to slowing by viewing traffic from Highway 101, and might reduce the casual traffic attracted to the route; that is, visitors unaware of the project until they see it from the freeway. Removal of internal segments of the Fence might reduce poten- tial congestion and accidents at unobstructed viewing points along the main Fence route trafficway. However, breaking up of the Fence into discontinuous segments would, according to the applicant, greatly reduce its artistic value, the effectuation of the artist's concept. Deletion of the coastal zone portion would remove the possi- bility of trespassers in the most geologically and ecologically sensitive areas of the Fence route, and resolve any question of ecological damage to the coastal bluff and the surf zone. The artist considers this section of the Fence very important to his concept, but he is aware of the possibility that the Fence could be built without the coastal section. That is, he was prepared to go ahead without it after the denial of a permit by the statewide Coastal Zone Commission, when he still had hopes of constructing the inland portion of the Fence in the summer of 1975. Also, the currently proposed coastal-zone section is different from the original Estero de San Antonio routing. In particular, it reaches the coast at a point at some distance (at least 3/4 of a mile) from both nearby Esteros. _ The applicant has accepted conditions which dictate last- minute adjustments of the route based on recommendations by a biologist who would accompany the construction parties. CHANGE IN LENGTH OF VIEWING PERIOD The viewing period could be shortened to include only one weekend, or perhaps no weekends, depending on the conclusions of the suggested Traffic Management Plan. If the full two-week viewing period were scheduled as part of the permit process, the viewing period would be shortened (after construction) if the commander of the local-area State Highway Patrol Office were to request it on the basis of weekday traffic experience. 149 oe ‘ds.hig, ca wide a? ie 7 ; 7 I ; - - a . a o Us a S AY * j J i , ; is ™ < PP 7 1 - i ne ‘ FP nee a yy 7¢ ih Seeue es = Creel ¢ . av 7 oe y Mew 3 oy oh - ‘ ane Fa “9 cy at even bet ; a : iin IN bale Oy ice al ha mal Feat Delain es 7 yet hoe Ww se rh Dy cL ee yell oa La on - et Pig q oT Pent PRO 21, (Tos Waa 3 ae: eee 8 ali A AA! ves ia ry Ai i ee ky ae ee i gh» S 4h esi Viet iu ; y Aa ae 3% one #0 ’ ; ‘ ra rae L 7 oy | -Y + , ie a oe he es 7 re he a i ac ar yes ; : arts @ , - : ol a : . aw : ' . ft ot . Po) net é a (vy ® j eR come) a a Os oi » & ae ' > : eo is : ze Sep ci 7-4) % ni r 2 el ) nF Mi ye : i iF ay ew, \ ere ; i. 3 > ii 3e a ' | wat ; tae 7) POR ee) ere an hve 5 orl Tee Vee 1 a7 ee : j ; on : ' bane } it, ed ath Mh ‘ ar vw : } a - Se a ks we _ : af yy a if - YY “os , ,* : ' 7 ; F 7 ; 16 aie ii ‘<4 yo! 7 > : ; 7 ; . ’ — 7 i - ; : vo = - wy : 7 +. 7 , ; 7 we “7 a e ¢ a "J 1» - - a ey a 2 ie ny ae 4 ie ; 7. in a oO. : : ’ 7 is - ; 7) - 7 iv 1 s 7 Avy 7 i un re) - — APPENDIX A REPORT PREPARERS This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Paul Zigman, President. The project leader, Dr. Richard Cole, and the deputy project leader, Ms. Gerry Wolff, were assisted by ESA staff members: Mr. Charles B. Bennett, Ms. Irene J. Chan, Mr. Clyde R. Davis, Ms. Kathleen G. Gundry, Ms. Jo Julin, Mr. Thomas H. Lindenmeyer, Mr. Jon C. Merkle, Mr. William L. Selleck and Ms. Judith B. Whipple. Donald Goodrich and Archaeological Con- sulting and Research Services, Inc. (see Appendix lL.) served as consultants to ESA on traffic and archaeology, respectively. As consultants to the Sonoma County Pianning Department, Dr. Welton L. Lee, California Academy of Sciences, Dr. John R. Arnold, Professor of Biology, State College, Sonoma, and Dr. Charles Quibell, Associate Professor of Biology, California State College, Sonoma, provided the subsections on marine biology, terrestrial fauna, and terrestrial flora, respectively. Assessment of the integrity of the ocean portion of Running Fence was performed by Environmental Research Consultants, Inc.,Arcata, California (see Appendix M ), under contract to the Sonoma County Planning Department. 15] APPENDIX B SOURCES OF INFORMATION (ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS) Information was received from the following organizations and individuals during the preparation of this report: Sonoma County Planning Department Mr. Thomas Cordill, Environmental Administrator Mr. Lloyd Johnson, Zoning Administrator Mr. Robert Pocan, Planner Public Works Department Mr. Walter Laab, Traffic Engineer Office of Building Inspector Ms. Anna Lee Wilcox, Clerk-Typist IV Agricultural Commission Mr. Harry McCracken, Commissioner Superintendent of Schools Mr. Dick Bacon, Assistant Superintendent Sheriff's Department Captain Charles Kishbaugh Running Fence Corporation Jeanne-Claude Javacheff, President Christo Javacheff, Assistant Secretary (and artist) 152 Running Fence Corporation--Current Accountants, Affiliates, Attorneys, and Contractors A & H Builders--Mr. Burr Heneman URS Research Company--Mr. H.G. (Marty) Abell, Jr. URS/The Ken R. White Company--Dr. Ernest C. Harris Paul Kayfetz, Attorney Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady and Pollack-- Mr. Stephen Tennis Harry Auerbach, CPA--Mr. Harry Auerbach J.K. Lasser and Company, CPA--Mr. R.H. Krako Maysles Films, Inc.--Mr. Albert Maysles, President and Mr. David Maysles, Vice President Henry N. Abrams, Inc.--Mr. Henry N. Abrams, Chairman Bryan §& Murphy Associates, Inc.--Mr. Robert L. Floyd U.S. Fish §& Wildlife Service Mr. Daniel Anderson California State Highway Patrol Captain Eric Denton, Commander, Santa Rosa Area Office Lt. Robert Greer California State Department of Fish and Game Lt. Rich Eliott California State Division of Forestry Mr. Gerald Murphy, Sonoma Office Mr. Ron Matiali, Sonoma Office Marin County Planning Department Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon, Chief of Current Planning Mr. Ray Ahearn, Planner Ms. Kathleen Ohlson, Environmental Planner Sheriff's Department Captain Harvey Teague 153 154 City of Petaluma Mr. Don Martin, Appraiser, Assessor's Office OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory--Mr. John Smail Newport (R.I.) "Monumenta''--Mr. William A. Crimmins, President Kassel, West Germany ''Documenta''--Dr. Arnold Bode "Wrapped Coast’, Syndey, Australia--Mr. John Kaldor, Project Coordinator Rifle (Colorado) Chamber of Commerce Mr. George Musselman, President Mr. Allen R. Koeneke, Former President University of Colorado Museum--Professor William A. Weber, Curator SUPPLEMENTARY CONTACT LIST (Dr. Welton L. Lee) Several local biologists were consulted as to their personal knowledge of the area and the possibility of special biological Significance relative to commercial use, their ongoing research, or to educational use of the area. In addition, two oceanographers were consulted to establish the stability of the ocean portion of the Fence. 1. Dr. Robert Andrews--Oceanographer, U.S. Navy Postgraduate School 2. Dr. Edward Thornton--Oceanographer, U.S. Navy Postgraduate School 5. Dr. Edward Smith--Marine Biologist, Pacific Marine Station 4. Dr. Dennis Breedlove--Botanist, California Academy of Sciences 5. Mr. Paul Kayfetz--Attorney to Running Fence Corporation 6. Mr. Burr Heneman--A § H Builders, Project Coordinator for Running Fence Corporation 7. Dr. Joel W. Hedgpeth--Marine Biologist 8. California Fish and Game--Menlo Park SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING = 2:5) 5) 5) VM EIN) DiOiE WINIOs TA EVN UE BAN Ane Ry © SVAN, (CVA) EINE ORIN GIA, 99) 5540) I = PHONES 7107: Si TSS 2A 2 GEORGE KOVATCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR October 23, 1975 Mr. Paul Zigman Environmental Science Associates 1291 East Hillsdale Blvd, Foster City, California 94404 Dear Paul: For purposes of completing the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the “Running Fence" project, the following information is provided, The undersigned has consulted with the other public agencies having jurisdiction over the project, with regard to the acceptance of Sonoma County as the lead agency in preparing the Environmental Impact Report, and to ascertain whether or not the existing record of communications, meetings, public hearings and other proceedings, involving past deliberations of those various agencies, represents the agencies' concerns in relation to the project. The following is a list of the individuals, and the various agencies with which they are connected, who have been contacted: 1. County of Marin, San Rafael, California: Mr. Tom Severns, Environmental Administrator Mr. Joel Rubey, Environmental Hearing Officer Ms. Kathy Ohlson, Planning Department 2. State Lands Division, State of California, Sacramento: Mr. Robert Hight, Chief Counsel, State Lands Commission Mr. William Northrup, State Lands Commission Staff 3. North Central Coast Regional Commission, San Rafael, California: Mr. Mike Fischer, Executive Director 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California: Mr. Tom Stone, Permit Division Mr. Tom Crews, Environmental Division. The response of all individuals is agreement that Sonoma County is acceptable as the lead agency and that the above-mentioned documents pertaining to proceedings of these agencies represent, in general, their concerns with regard to the project. All of these agencies will receive the Draft Environmental Impact Report for comments. Very truly yours, 155 GEORGE KOVATCH, Planning Director THOMAS E. Environmental\ Administrator 156 APPENDIX C REFERENCE LIST Air Weather Service, Undated, Uniform Summary of Surface Weather Observations San Francisco 1948-1965, National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina. Armstrong, C.F., 1974, Landslides and Relative Slope Stablility, Sonoma County Planning Department, Santa Rosa. BAAPCD, 1974, Air Currents, June, pg. 3, San Francisco. BAAPCD, 1975, Air Currents, April, pg. 3, San Francisco. Blake, M.C.; J.T. Smith, C.M. Wentworth, and R.H. Wright, 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of Western Sonoma County and Northernmost Marin County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco. Bloomfield Ranch EIR, 1973, Sonoma County (Elgar Hill Environmental Planning and Architecture) Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971, Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco. California Department of Water Resources, 1971, wind in California, Resources Agency, Sacramento. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1949, Mines and Mineral Deposits of Sonoma County, California, County Map Series, California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1972, Earthquake Intensities- Occurrences of Intensities VI-VIII in California from 1810-1969, Seismic Safety Information Packet 72-4, California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Federal Highway Administration, 1974, simplified Analysis Technique for Estimating Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Highway Facilities, Appendix B, FWA-EIS-73-01-F, Department of Transportation, San Francisco. Findley, Lams J 97 "Christo and the Battle of Running Fence," ciey, July 14.19 9, 975. Foxakeb. yaad. eSims) JeAe Bartow, and: £.J. Heliley,, 1973), Preliminary Geologic Map of Eastern Sonoma County and Western Napa County, California, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-483, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco. Jennings, C.W., 1973, State of California Preliminary Fault and Geologic Map, Preliminary Report 13, California Divisionof Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Leach, HER, J2M. Brode, ‘S.l. Nicoila, 1974, atrthe Crossroads), California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Marin County Planning Department, Spake 1974, Marin County Statistical Abstract. Mason, Jack, 1975, "Tomales Bay Was a Bit of Switzerland in Marin," Marin Magazine, San Rafael Independent Journal, Saturday, July 26, LOST Miller, V.C., J.A. DeLapp, B.F. Smith, F.U. Graham,» R.W. Hansen, J.H. Kashiwagi, G. Lambert, L.R. Piontkowski, 1972, Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Santa Rosa. PEDCO -- Environmental Specialists, Incorporated, 1973, Investigation of Fugitive Dust -- Sources Emissions and Control, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia. Powell, W. Robert, 1974, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, California Native Plant Society Special Publication #1, Berkeley. Rice, S.J. and Strand, R.G., 1971, Report to Accompany Geologic and Slope Stability Maps of the Tennessee Valley, Lucas Valley, and North Coastal Areas, Marin County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. Schultz, T.J., 1971, HUD Noise Assessment Guidelines -- Technical Background, PB 210591, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia. Smithsonian Institution, 1975, Endangered and Threatened Plant Species of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office #94-A, Washington, D.C. Sonoma County Economic Development Board, 1974, Sonoma County Data File. 157 158 Sonoma County Planning Department, 1975, Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin-Summary Composite Alternatives. Travis, Russell B., 1949, Geologic and Economic Maps of the Sebastopol Quadrangle, California, (Bulletin 162), California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. URS Research Co. files on Environmental Assessment of Christo's Running Fence. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1971, Noise Abatement and Control: Departmental Policy, Implementation Responsibilities and Standards, Circular 1390.2, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. U.S. Geological Survey, 1971, Precipitation Depth-Duration-Frequency Relations for the San Francisco Bay Region, California, San Francisco. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967, Report and General Soil Map, Marin County, California, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Point Reyes Station, California. U.S. Weather Bureau, Undated, Climatography of the United States No. 20-04: Santa Rosa, Redwood City. Webster, D.A., 1972 a, Map Showing Ranges in Probable Maximum Well Yield From Water-Bearing Rocks in the San Francisco Bay Region, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-431, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco. Webster, D.A., 1972 b, Map Showing Areas in the San Francisco Bay Region Where Nitrate, Boron, and Dissolved Solids in Ground Water May Influence Local or Regional Development, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-432, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1975, Erosion Potential Reconnaissance, Christo Running Fence, Coastal Bluffs near Dillon Beach, Marin County, California, Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, San Francisco. Wyle Laboratories, 1971, Community Noise, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco. Zane, Maitland, 1975, ''Court OK's Petaluma's Growth Limit", San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 1975. Christo, 1973, Christo Valley Curtain, Henry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, New York. 1. Ze 36 4, 5e 6. Te 8. 9 13. i4. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE LIST (DONALD K. GOODRICH) Post Mile System for Accident Location Identification report pre- pared by the Department of Public Works, County of Sonoma, July 1973 e Letter to Mr. George Musselman, Manager, Independent Lumber Com- pany, Rifle, Colorado, from Ms. Gerry Wolff, ESA, July 24, 1975+ Letter from Mr. Allen R. Koeneke, President, The First National Bank in Rifle, Rifle, Colorado, to Ms. Gerry Wolff, ESA, July 30, 1975 Partial map - Revised Route of Christo's Running Fence in Marin County, by URS/The Ken R. White Co., July 5, 19756 Partial map - Property Sketch for Running Fence Corporation, Christo's Running Fence Project, Sonoma County and Marin Counties, California, by Bryan & Murphy Associates, Ince, July 30, 1975-6 Daily Schedule of Events, 1975 Sonoma County Fair, July 14-26, 19756 1974 Post Mile Book, Sonoma County, Department of Public Works. Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin, Transportation Study, Technical Report, Phase 1, Summary. Sonoma County, Transportation Study, Technical Report, Phase 1, prepared by JHK & Associates. Sonoma County, Transportation Study, Technical Report, Phase 2, prepared by JHK & Associates. Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin, Commuter Survey, prepared by Albert Solnit, General Plan Consultant, 1974. Sonoma County "Stay-A-Day" prepared under the auspices of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in cooperation with local Chambers of Commerce. Traffic Counts by Sonoma County Traffic Department, 1973-1975. Accident heer ts by Sonoma County Traffic Department, 1973 and 1974. : 159 266 160 Goodrich References (Cont. ) { Letter to Mr. George Kovatch, Planning Director, Sonoma County Planning Department from Mr. Le Newman, Chief, Highway Operations, Caltrans, February 5, 1975. Letter to Mr. Robert Pocan, Sonoma County Planning Board, from Captain Eric Denton, Santa Rosa Area, California Highway Patrol, February 10, 1975. Staff report from Sonoma County Planning Department, January 23, 1975. Letter to all commissioners, California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, from Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director, State Commission, re: Minutes of State Commission Meeting of June 17-18, 1975. Letter to Captain Charley Kishbaugh, Sheriff's Department, Sonoma County, from Mr. Burr Heneman, Project Coordinator, A & H Builders, Inc., April 4, 1975. Letter to Fire Chief Pedroli, Marin County, from Mr. T. L. Dougherty. ) President, A & H Builders, Inc., March 26, 1975. Letter to Ranger-in-Charge Frank Crossfield, Califomia Division of Forestry, from Mr. Burr Heneman, Project Coordinator, A & H Builders, Inc., April 3, 1975. Letter to Mr. Donald Neuwirth, California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, from Mr. H. E. Abell, Jr., AIP, Senior Planner, URS Research Company, May 21, 1975. Excerpts from report by URS Research Company on the Christo Running Fence, April 8, 1975. Staff report to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission meeting of April 17, 1975 Telephone calls to the following: Sonoma County Fair Association; Christian Brothers Winery; Napa County Chamber of Commerce; Berringer Winery; Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce; Angel's Camp, Calaveras District Fair; Renaissance Pleasure Faire; Mill Valley Fall Arts Festival Committee; Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce; Sonoma-Marin Fair; and Sears Point International Raceway. North Coast Harbor Study prepared by JHK & Associates for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973. 2 7° 8 =. Goodrich References (Cont. ) Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study, Area 1 report, 19756 Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study, Area 3 report, 1975. "A Policy on Design of. Urban Highway and Arterial Streets'', American Association of State Highway Officials. 161 162 SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE LIST _ (DRS. JOHN R. ARNOLD AND CHARLES QUIBELL) Abrams, LeRoy, Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Ca. Vol. 1, 1940; Vol. 2, 1944; Vol. 3, 1951, Vol. 4 with Roxana S. Ferris, 1960. Grinnelie Ja, J.s. Dixon, and J.J. Linsdale, 1937. Fur-=bearim, Mammals of California, Vols. 1 and 2, University of California Press (berkeley) Cae Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson, 1959. The Mammals of North America, 2 vols. The Ronald Press, New York, New York. Howell, John T., Marin Flora, Manual of Flowering Plants and Ferns of Marin County. University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca. 2nd edition, with supplement, 1970. Ingles, Lloyd G., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford Press, Stanford, Ca. Munz, Philip A., 1959. A California Flora,* University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca. Powell, W.R. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Public. No. 1 of the California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, Ca. 1974. Stebbins, Robert C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Mass. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE LIST (DR. WELTON L. LEE) Bolin, R.L. and Abbott, D.P. 1963. Studies on the Marine Climate and Phytoplankton of the Central Coastal Area of California. 1954-1960. Rept. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish Invest. 9: 23-45. *and Supplement (1968) Appendix JD. Rare and Endangered Native Plants of southwestern sonoma and adjacent Marin County: (Sources:CNPS Inventory (1974); Photocopies of labels of herbarium specimens from all major California herbaria; the collections of the North Coast Herbarium of California) The following taxa, taken from the CIPS lists, were carefully considered as to the likelihood of their occurrence within or near the easement and route of Running Fence. Only those marked with an asterisk (*) were found to be reasonable candi- dates. These decisions were based on field studies of the actual route, actual known collection sites, and a knowledge, both personal and from the literature, of the specific habitat requirements of each of the species. Evidence upon which the others were rejected is similarly extensive and was judged too much to include in this report. Interested persons wishing to review this may contact Dr. Charles Quibell at the North Coast Herbarium, Department of Biology, California State College, Sonoma. Establishing an appointment by telephone is strongly advised. Field records of the native and introduced species observed during the field studies on which this report are based including lists and actual specimens, are also on file at the North Coast Herbarium. Permission to peruse these materials may be obtained by contacting Dr- Quibell as indicated above. Acrostis aristiglumis Swall. (Avmed bent-grass) *. blasdalei Witche- var. marinensis Crampton (Marin bent-grass) *R. Clivicola Crampton var. punta-reyesensis Crampton (Pt. ~ Reyes b-g-) *Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. var. sonomensis Rubtzoff (Sonoma alopecurus *Arabis blepharophylla H.&A. (Coast rock-cress) Arctostaphylos eee Eastw. (Baker's Manzanita) Rs eee M.S. Baker (Vine Hill Manzanita) A. virgata bastwe in Sarg. (Bolinas Manzanita) Astragalus clarinus Jeps. eae Hunt's Rattleweed) Blennosperma bakeri Heiser (Baker's blennosperma) B. nanum (Hook) Dlake var. robustum J.T. Howell (Pt. Reyes ~ ‘Dlennosperma) Calamavrostis crassiglumis Thurb. (Thurber's reed—-grass) *Cam Sais Californica (Kell.) Heller (Swamp hare-bell) *Carex albida Bailey (White sedge) Castilleja leschkeana J.T. Howell (Pt. Reyes Indian Paintbrush) Ceanothus ¢loriosus J-T. Howell var. porrectus J.T. Howell Tt. Vision ceanothus) 163 164 D. Concluded *Chorizanthe valida Wats. (Sonoma chorizanthe) Cordylanthus brunneus (Gees) Penn. ssp. capillaris cane Chuang eck. een Cordylanthus maritimus Nutt. ssp. palustris (Behr.) Chuang G CCKe Delphinium bakeri Ewan (Baker's delphinium) *D. aS Heller (Yellow larkspur) Drosera rotundifolia L. (Round-leaved sundew) Erysimum ftranciscanum Rossb. var. franciscanum (San Francisco sunt Lower Lasthenia burkei (Greene) Greene (Burke's baeria) Limnanthes vinculans Ornduff (Ornduff's meadow-—foam) Lupinus tidestromii Greene var. layneae (Iastw.) Munz. (Pt. Reyes Lupine) Polygonum marinense Mertens & Raven (Marin knotweed) *Potentilla hickmanii Eastw. (Hickman cinquefoil) *Rhynchospora californica Gale (California beaked-rush) Tanacetum camphoratum Less. (Dune tansy) Appendix E AMPHIBIANS FOUND Iii SONOMA COUNTY* _ Observed in Likely to be Vicinity of Easement Found in or near Name Sepiie 1975 Easement Siac Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Pacific Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus) Rough-skinned Newt (Taricha granulosa) California Newt x (Taricha torosa) Red-bellied Newt (Taricha rivularis) Ensatina 6 (Ensatina eschscholtzi) California Slender Salamander Bd (Batrachoseps attenuatus) Black Salamander KG (Aneides flavipunctatus) ae Salamander Aneides lugubris) Western Toa (Bufo boreas) Pacific Treefrog x (Hyla regilla) Red—- aro Frog (Rana aurora) MSN OS eee ee Frog X Rana boylei Bullfrog x (Rana catesbeiana) *Specimens of each species have been taken in Sonoma County ; most are represented in the collection at California State College, Sonoma. 165 Appendix F REPTILES FOUND IN SONOMA COUNTY * Observed in Likely to be Vicinity of Easement Found in or near Name Sept. 1975 Easement hie ace Pond Turtle Cle s marmorata) Western Fence Lizard A (Sceloporus occidentalis) , Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) Western okKink (Eumeces skiltonianus) Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus) Northern Alligator bizard Xx (Gerrhonotus coeruleus) Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) Pacific ring—-neck Snake X (Diadophis punctatus) Sharp-tailed Snake (Contia tenuis) Racer (Coluber oonstrictor) Gopher snake Xx (Pituophis melanoleucus) Common Kingsnake x (Lampropeltis getulus) Common Garter Snake x (Thamnophis sirtalis) Been Terrestrial Garter Snake x x Thamnophis a ans) Western Aquatic Garter Snake Ke (Thamnophis couchi) Western eee (Crotalus viridis) ¥Specimens of each species have been taken in Sonoma County, most species are represented in the collection at California State College, Sonoma. 166 Appendix G BIRDS RECORDED IN SONOMA COUNTY Likely to ! Observed in Occur in this Vicinity of Easement Vicinity between Name Sept. 1975 April and August Common Loon X x Yellow-billed Loon Arctic Loon x Red—throated Loon X Red-necked Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe x Western Grebe x X Pied—billed Grebe X Wandering Albatross Black-footed Albatross Fulmar Pink-footed Shearwater Flesh-footed Shearwater New Zealand Shearwater Sooty Shearwater Ashy Petrel Black Petrel White Pelican Brown Pelican xX x Double-crested Cormorant Brandt's Cormorant xX X Pelagic Cormorant X X Magnificent Frigatebird Great Blue Heron x X Green Heron Little Blue Heron Cattle Egret Great Egret aK X Snowy Egret x Black-crowned Night Heron x X American Bittern Whistling Swan Trumpeter Swan Canada Goose Black Brant White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Mallard X x Gadwall Pintail xX Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal 167 G. Continued Name Cinnamon Teal American Widgeon Northern Shoveler Wood Duck Redhead Ring-necked Duck Canvasback Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Common Goldeneye Bufflehead Oldsquaw Harlequin Duck White-winged Scoter Surf Scoter Black Scoter Ruddy Duck Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Turkey Vulture White-tailed Kite Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper's Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Rough-legged Hawk Ferruginous Hawk Golden Eagle Bald Eagle Marsh Hawk Osprey Prairie Falcon Peregrine Falcon Merlin American Kestrel California Quail Mountain Quail Ring-necked Pheasant Clapper Rail Virginia Rail sora Common Gallinule American Coot Black Oystercatcher Semi-palmated Plover Killdeer 168 Observed in Vicinity of Easement sept. 1975 Ped Pd ops Ps rs Ps Ps Likely to Occur in this Vicinity between April and August rs PS PS ms PIP Pa PS Ps PS PSPS PSPS PS res G. Continued Likely to Occur Observed in Vicinity in this Vicinity 9 of Easement between April Name Sept. 1975 and August American Golden Plover Black—bellied Plover Surfbird Ruddy Turnstone Black Turnstone . Common Snipe x a Long-billed Curlew Spotted Sandpiper Whimbrel Xx X Solitary Sandpiper Wandering Tattler Willet Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Red Knot Rock Sandpiper Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Least Sandpiper x Dunlin Short—billed Dowitcher Wester Sandpiper Marbled Godwit Ruff Sanderling American Avocet Black=-necked Stilt Red Phalarope Wilson's Phalarope Northern Phalarope x xX Pomarine Jaeger Parasitic Jaeger Skua Glaucous Gull Glaucous-winged Gull Western Gull x xX Herring Gull Thayer's Gull PS PS PS Ps PS Ps PS rs PS California Gull x xe Ring-billed Gull x axe Mew Gull Bonaparte's Gull Heermann's Gull Black-legged Kittiwake Sabine's Gull Forster's Tern xX aK Common Tern Elegant Tern Caspian Tern 169 G. Continued Name Black Tern Common Murre Pigeon Guillemot Marbled Murrelet Ancient Murrelet Cassin's Auklet Rhinoceros Auklet Tufted Puffin Band-tailed Pigeon Rock Dove Mourning Dove Roadrunner Barn Owl Screech Owl Great Horned Owl Snowy Owl Pygmy Owl Burrowing Owl Spotted Owl Long-eared Owl Short—eared Owl Saw-whet Owl Poorwill Common Nighthawk Vaux's Swift White-throated Swift Anna's Hummingbird Rufous Hummingbird Allen's Hummingbird Calliope Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Common Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Acorn Woodpecker Lewis' Woodpecker Yellow-—bellied Sapsucker Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Nuttall's Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Tropical Kingbird Western Kingbird Ash-throated Flycatcher Black Phoebe Say's Phoebe Willow Flycatcher Western Flycatcher 170 Observed in Vicinity of Easement Sept. 1975 PS PS Likely to Occur in this Vicinity between April and August bM oby bbs Ps PS Ps PS PS G. Continued Name Western Wood Pewee Olive-sided Flycatcher Horned Lark Violet-green Swallow Tree Swallow Bank Swallow Rough-winged Swallow Barn Swallow Cliff Swallow Purple Martin Steller's Jay serub Jay Yellow-billed Magpie Common Raven Common Crow Chestnut—backed Chickadee Plain Titmouse Bushtit White—breasted Nuthatch Red—breasted Nuthatch Pygmy Nuthatch Brown Creeper Wrentit Dipper House Wren Winter Wren Bewick's Wren Long@billed Marsh Wren Canyon Wren Rock Wren Mockingbird Gray Catbird California Thrasher American Robin Varied Thrush Hermit Thrush Swainson Thrush Western Bluebird Mountain Bluebird Townsend's Solitaire Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Water Pipit Bohemian Waxwing Cedar Waxwing Phainopepla Observed in Vicinity of Easement Sept. 1975 Ww 4 Ps PS Xx Likely to Occur in this Vicinity between April and August PS Ps PS PSS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Xx Ps Ps PS PS PS PS 171 G. Continued Name Northern Shrike Loggerhead Shrike Common Starling Hutton's Vireo Solitary Vireo Warbling Vireo Black-and-white Warbler Tennessee Warbler Orange-crowned Warbler Nashville Warbler Parula Warbler Yellow Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Black-throated Gray Warbler Townsend's Warbler Hermit Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Blackpoll Warbler Palm Warbler MacGillivray's Warbler Yellowthroat Yellow—breasted Chat Wilson's Warbler American Redstart House Sparrow Western Meadowlark Yellow—headed Blackbird Red-winged Blackbird Tri-colored Blackbird Hooded Oriole Northern Oriole Brewer's Blackbird Brown—headed Cowbird Western Tanager Summer Tanager Summer Tanager Black—headed Grosbeak Lazuli Bunting Painted Bunting Evening Grosbeak Purple Finch House Finch Pine Siskin American Goldfinch Lesser Goldfinch Lawrence's Goldfinch Red Crossbill 172 Observed in Vicinity of Easement Sept. 1975 xX Xx Ps PS Psa Ps Ps PS Likely to Occur in this Vicinity between April and August PSPS PS PS PS PS PSPS PS Ps PS PS PS PS PS G. Concluded Likely to Occur Observed in Vicinity in this Vicinity of Easement between April Green-tailed Towhee Rufous-sided Towhee xX X Brown Towhee X x Savannah Sparrow x X Vesper Sparrow Xx x Lark Sparrow Rufous-—crowned Sparrow Sage Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco X Chipping Sparrow Brewer Sparrow Black-chinned Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow xX X Golden-crowned Sparrow White-—throated Sparrow Fox Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Swamp Sparrow Song Sparrow 173 174 Appendix H MAMMALS OF SONOMA COUNTY* Likely to be Name Animals, tracks or sign in or near Broad-footed Mole Sept. 1975** Easement (Scapanus latimanus) a x Shrew—mole Xx (Neurotrichus gibbsii) ye Shrew xX Sorex vagrans Ornate Shrew (Sorex ornatus) Trowbridge's Shrew (Sorex trowbridgii) x Bats Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Yuma otis (Myotis anemsis) eee ily O . Myotis evotis Fringed Myotis (M. thysanodes) Long-legge otis (M. volans) California Myotis (M. californicus) Silver-haired Ba (Lasionycteris noctivagans) Big Brown Ba (Eptesicus fuscus) Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) Hoary Bat X (Lasiurus cinereus) Townsend's Big-eared Bat Xx (Corynorhinus townsendii) peta Bat x Antrozous pallidus) Brazilian (formerly Mexican) Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana) Brush habbit — xX x (Sylvilagus bachmani) *Actual specimens from Sonoma County, as represented in the collection at Califormia State College, Sonoma, plus a study of the literature and other collections have been used to compile this list. **Since most mammals are nocturnal, a complete list would result only after considerable trapping and/or netting. MAMMALS OF SONOMA COUNTY (CONT'D) Likely to be Animals, tracks or si in or neer “ane Sept OSes ae Easement Black-tailed Jack Rabbit Ne xX (Lepus californicus) Townsend's 1pmun (Eutamias townsendii) Sonoma Chip (E. Sonomae) California Ground Squirrel X (Spermophilus beecheyi) he ern Gray aoe Sciurus griseus oe Squirre Tamiasciurus douglasii) Pocket Gopher, Variously called Botta (Thomomys BELtaS) or X X Southern Pocket Gopher (Thomomys umbrinus minor) Heermann's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys heermanni ) Western vest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) X Salt-marsh Harvest Mouse (R. raviventris) Deer Ifouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) X Brush oe (P. boylii) Pinon Mouse (P. truei) Dusky-footed Woodrat (Nectoma fuscipes) Western eocapactea Mouse (Clethrionomys occidentalis) Re ree Mouse (Phenacomys longicaudus) California Vole (Microtus californicus) x xX (Meadow Mouse Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Norway Ra (Rattus norvegicus) ¥,4 House Mouse (Mus musculus) Pacific Jumping Mouse (Zapus trinotus) (Z. t. orarious) --Whales and Dolphins are not included in this listing 175 MMALS OF SONOMA COUNTY (CONT*D se r Likely to be ‘Animals, tracks or sign in or near Name = Sept 197ose . Easement Coyote See note l. (Canis latrans) Gray Fox Xx ee cineroargenteus) Blac ear (Ursus americanus) Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Ermine (Mustela erminea streatori) Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) Mink (Mustela vison) Badger (Taxidea taxus) He Western spotted Skunk (Spilogale eee Stripe (Mephitis mephitis) River Otter (Lutra canadensis) Mountain bion See note 2. (Felis concolor) Bobca (Lynx rufus) xX Northern Sea Lion (Bumeto ias jubata) x3 Steller) California Sea Lion x3 (Zalophus californicus) Harbor Seal : 3 (Phoca vitulina) x Black-tailed Deer (Mule Deer) (Dama hemionus) (Odoccileus hemionus) K x UENCE 2 Pe hs ee 1. One rancher reported that coyotes had been very common many years ago, but that they were not present now. Some very large scat was found by us but not identified as coyote. 2. The same rancher reported a mountain lion several years ago. 3- Possibly at seaward end--Bodega Bay. APPENDIX J VISITOR-ATTRACTING FEATURES OF THE RUNNING FENCE and THEIR LOCATIONS. POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION POINTS. As noted in the Text (Visual/Aesthetic Impacts), the indirect visual impacts of the Running Fence as an "'attractive'' object are probably more important then the direct impacts. This Appendix presents a description of the Fence route and its "attractive" elements, in some detail, with an assessment of their implications. Quantitative aspects of traffic impacts are treated in the text (Section II. A. 8--Traffic/Circulation/Parking) and in Appendix kK. The Running Fence project will have three stages: e Construction e Viewing (during two weeks in September 1976*) 6 Removal The construction and removal stages will not cause sizable adverse impact from visitors, since the placing of poles and cables by men and equipment (especially from a distance) ought not to be much more attractive to viewers than the digging of wells, the building of water supply ponds, or the loading of hay--usual activities on Sonoma County farm and dairy land. However, the visitor impact will, most decidedly, be during the viewing stage--a maximum of two weeks in September 1976. During the viewing stage, visitors from the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond are expected. As many as 30,000 people, or 10,000 cars (three persons per car) could be expected on the peak weekend day (fewer on weekdays).* Because there are no specified stopping or parking areas provided for the viewers, the Fence will be seen mainly from autos moving along the country roads that are closest to the Fence--and from Highway 101. Therefore, congestion (stopping and starting) and traffic backup can be expected, at least during peak viewing periods (see Traffic/Circulation/Parking Section and Appendix K). *See Traffic/Circulation/Parking section in text, and Appendix kK. 177 178 As the Running Fence "runs" in an east-west direction, visitors can view it while driving west, and again while returning east, or vice versa (a round trip of about 45 miles). The route from the east would be via the following roads (see Figures J-1, J-2, and 6*), e Highway 101 © Old Redwood Highway e Railroad Avenue e Stony Point Road e Meacham Road e Pepper Road @ Walker Road e Petaluma/Valley Ford Road ® Highway 1 8 Franklin School Road e Marsh Road The relationships among view of the Fence, existence (or lack) of place to stop cars (along public right of way), and potential traffic hazard have been studied in the following detail* (see Figure J-3 for graphic summary): I. East to West. The main visual introduction to the east end of the Running Fence route is via the "north-south'' auto movement on Highway 101. Travelers in both directions on Highway 101 have their first views of the Fence from some distance, so panic stops would be likely only if preceding drivers slow down considerably to view the Fence. "Northbound" viewers, at first glimpse of the Fence on Meacham Hill or with prior knowledge of the Fence route, may exit: *Figure 6 appears in Traffic/Circulation/Parking in text, and in Appendix K. +Notated during normal traffic on summer weekend days, July 26, 1975 and August 3, 1975. Abnormal traffic will change movement of traffic and may make any stopping hazardous. Jenner rl . (ip ® Goes ) : (12) oN Sebastopol 2) \ e are dM rae ae = Bel, FENC COAST STATE i Petaluma e @ BEACHES We eA = A A Novato ® ES | ! =O) w J N) LS Wg =a hs gy) ql EEN ES F SS % IN San Rafael e sx POINT REYES A: d NATIONAL SEASHORE SM Pen 5 MILES FIGURE J-1 U.S. AND STATE ROUTES, AND 179 COASTAL RECREATION AREAS Tien 2 OM 8A ow Bm Pills % etl \ #8 aeiten <I. ee vel ’ a Bd a Ch me" 9 wn Fine “F iby tate’ ih Fhiey oe! ii 1s fe } a rain ‘ - Pi n ee in’ nee ba in cheat ona ‘ € rsvouls 2 rw aed ways Se ‘, ; pis © ; 7 ‘ { "tel be | f 7 ’ F & | F es i = bs . a a q i* ry ¢ a ol E at aan < 77 ; 7 wie os 4 j i ’ : 5 ie et af ; , J > ‘s pal \ 4 e oy ay \¢ | Z* © 7 c ae 5 @ , “ Ge hee ey a . ie : > a > era * re —? -F id - @ Eo : ] =. aaa oe A -“4 : i ' 7 ‘ ‘Si 6, * ¢ @ \) eer ; . ' -% t f i = > = i ’ a 5 s 4 . . Ja say | 7 a j ae s : pom gl ee, ' I “a vo ; ' : ' ' we uy, ‘ epee ed . < a_i) ¢ i eee e-*, ht 7 ~ al = > ~ rn he . ta f ie At Le | * Wty lea 7 =f, ‘i 2 ie a i 7. : a, ae ie ihe Vm Vas p ¢ " s ' ' 4 i Ye 1 wes é 7 Fo", + v a la i } ff oe ve ' " =: : \ ia > | : — a ; A . ea - i 4 a : -* >. i <x A eel oe it Ate as. 6 ; Tt os a ys 7 f . a a= , . on 2 - a’ t 1.) a “ . die’, a * i} ‘i é ine ‘ ’ J Tate ’ 4 r - ; ; prs oa i yo a . — <- ® co x : a et FIGURE J-2 meee@e= Running Fence Road Type < ° 1 Four-lane freeway Two-lane roads with centerline stripe and shoulder delineated by edge stripe oR nN SS S ) VARs NY J NW i eg == 7 AN wo Two-Tane roads with centerline stripe but without shoulder M ‘ SRS PL ~y a A Dy Ce TENTATIVE LOCATIONS 7 W Ne SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER ~“ 7@ WH AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL ‘ \ Yi CE SEE Na TD). Ae x 182 0 eel REFER TO FIGURE 3 CIRCULATION CHARACTERISTICS FIGURE J-2 2000° FOR BASIC LEGEND 183 i er iY? Ze SP BN / Hi “ : os uy fl eT uN Gate Type Type con't. Pre-existing interior gate Existing interior gate donated by Running Fence Corporation = id ipe nor shoulder Two-lane roads with neither centerline str One-lane road \ NY rte ER Fae uit a 7 tke Wao Se Ban se rn mn ide ai Pini non AT ew aalheed “iL is $e) iat n on Te r i n ont on8 , : ~omt ea leer , al FIGURE J-3 fe ROSE SHH WAU ANS acces$ ee QS Mw SON 186 memQee= Running Fence Be Jiewpoint *& Point of hazard MMMM Ss Limited access areas ; qi te I > \ —*Vowwenks__ S 9 : ia ~h ma 5 aa u ? =~ 1) & <> 0 2000° betel REFER TO FIGURE 3 FOR BASIC LEGEND 1 Gee SAN Tee) KOSS Sat I Sg LPC, ed @ ; PAWNS PEIN) Na J ac J é < a ara SR SA ges HS Rp % i é NG z COREE es or Ae WES «fh FIGURE J-3 FENCE VIEWS AND TRAFFIC HAZARDS LEN \ Ts b af Mi \ Pe pea ep. i Ss. ergy ‘ 7y LORRI) e Onto Old Redwood Highway southbound, then to Stony Point Road northwestbound, parallel to the freeway and to the Fence; @ Onto Railroad Avenue (where Fence breaks at freeway), which runs under freeway bridge and connects with Stony Point Road; e Onto West Sierra Avenue, which also connects with Stony Point Road (Southbound) for return to Fence route.* For traffic moving "south" on 101, the only turnoff after view- ing the Running Fence is at Old Redwood Highway (southbound) and then onto Stony Point Road heading northwest. Southbound Highway 101 viewers with prior knowledge of the Fence route may also exit at Gravenstein Highway, for connection with Stony Point Road. South- moving traffic on 101 has access to a truck stop providing a good view of the Fence, while presenting a real hazard to traffic due to congestion. ** The Fence is not visible from Old Redwood Highway, east of the freeway, except by concentrated exploring along short roads leading from Old Redwood Highway. There is a route from Old Redwood Highway to Stony Point Road via Railroad Avenue, crossing under Highway 101. Along Stony Point Road, there is ample shoulder area for autos to stop for viewing and for photographing the Fence (a probable desire of numerous viewers) .* North of Denman Road, Stony Point Road has a wide shoulder that would provide space for up to about 20 cars, for viewing the Fence on Meacham Hill. Pepper Road at Stony Point Road provides a return to Highway 101 for southbound traffic only. North of this point, there is no stopping till Jewett Road (which is out of view of the Fence).. Further north, at the PG & E Cotati Substation, there is room for up to about 10 cars, with view of the Fence from both sides of Stony Point Road. The Fence route crosses the road (the Fence breaks) near this point at a low point on the route. From Stony Point Road, Fence viewers will turn south onto Meacham Road and run roughly parallel to the Fence until the Fence route *Also Gravenstein Highway interchange further north, connecting with Stony Point Road. **Recommended to be closed during Fence viewing stage(especially during weekend) --Captain Eric Denton, Commander California Highway Patrol, Santa Rosa area, Telephone Communication, August 20, 1975. *Statements in this EIR about space along shoulders merely indicate that there is a physical capability for stopping. It is not certain that this will be permitted. In general, such stopping is permitted when there is enough shoulder width for the auto to be entirely clear of the roadway. However, motorists must move on when’ 189 so directed by traffic controllers (Lt. Robert Greer, Santa Rosa Area Office, California Highway Patrol, Telephone Communication, October 175-1975: crosses Meacham Road, just north of Pepper Road, near Stemple Creek (a low point in the route). Near Stony Point Road, Meacham Road has shoulders to accommodate up to about 10 cars where there is a good view. There are additional shoulders on both sides of Meacham, till the entrance to the dump.* At the top of the rise at the driveway of 388 Meacham, there is a Clear view of the Fence, but no place to stop cars on the right of way. This presents a conflict with the drive- way entrance and with road traffic. Further on, Hammel Road (not a through road) offers a stopping place to see the Fence, but turning around on Hammel presents a traffic-jam potential. At the intersection of Pepper Road and Walker Road, up to about 25 cars can-be accommodated along the shoulder, for stopping, viewing, and photographing. Various single-car spaces are available at the edge of the road and at stream culverts, allowing for emergency and viewing stops. At the intersection of Walker Road and Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, about 5 cars can be accommodated to view the Fence at a distance, for a length of 1/4 to 1/2 mile. About 1/4 mile beyond this inter- section, there is another pull-out for about 5 cars, with a clear view straight ahead to the Fence. The view at the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road break in the Fence is unobstructed, and a potential distraction to motorists. The view south from Roblar Road, which accommodates about 3 cars, is also unobstructed. Once again, turning around presents a traffic hazard. The community of Bloomfield and Bloomfield Road view the Fence directly to the south, but there is very little space to stop a car for viewing or photographing. Within Bloomfield but out of Sight of the Fence there is a vacant lot suitable for parking (50' x 100' +) at Sutton and Bloomfield; however, its use is deter- mined, of course, by its owner. The Fence runs parallel to, and on the north side of, Petaluma/ Valley Ford Road, on private property, just beyond Carroll Road** (not a through road, where traffic would interfere with residents' activities and should be discouraged). About 20 cars can be tempo- rarily accommodated on the northern shoulder of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road for viewing and photographing--the only opportunity to see the Fence at Close range from a public right of way (unless Estero Road in Marin County is permitted to be part of the Fence route and public access is allowed). At this point, assistance may be needed to aid traffic flow and to discourage trespassing. * The Fence can be viewed straight-on by viewers facing north on Highway 1.**Just before one reaches the relatively flat valley of the *Dump traffic is from 7 AM to 4 PM, including Saturdays and Sundays . **Also known as Cooper-Kirkland Road. 190 ‘According to the applicant's plans, monitors will be stationed at such points to discourage trespassing and off-duty Sheriff's deputies will assist in traffic movement. **This would actually be the first view for those approaching from the south on Highway 1 and then taking the West-to-east route. Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, there is a hill on Highway 1 to the south from which about five miles of Fence can be seen; about 50 cars can be temporarily accommodated at this point. The Fence follows the ridges to the north behind eucalyptus trees, then descends upon the town of Valley Ford where the Fence route crosses (breaks at) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road in the midst of commercial and social activities, yet staying only on private property. It is near here that private parking and portable toilet facilities and litter con- tainers* could be most needed and most easily reached by the public-- where commercial services are available. Valley Ford presently can absorb some parking (in private commercial parking spaces), but beyond about 20-30 cars, traffic would be obstructed. The Fence crosses into Marin County at Americano Creek, just southeast of Valley Ford, and can be viewed by southbound viewers along Franklin School Road, at which the Fence breaks on its way to the coast and into the shallow waters of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion of the Fence route is on private property, generally remote from public roads and access, and therefore, not viewable by auto** or by casual hiker except from long distances (Bodega Harbor or Tomales Bluff) or from private property (Dillon Beach). However, the Fence's entry into the ocean will be viewable from airplanes (probably from local airports) and from boats (from Bodega Harbor and Tomales Bay). 2. West to East. For the traveler approaching from the west toward Valley Ford, the Fence can first be seen from the Valley Ford Cutoff; there is no stopping until the space at the vegetable stand on the old right-of-way, where there is, however, no view of the Fence. Off Franklin School Road is Estero Road, a two-mile, one-way - traffic, partially paved (Marin) County-maintained road that leads to private property and offers views of much of the Fence (as pro- posed) from a long distance, looking east at and beyond Valley Ford. However, it presents traffic, fire, and trespassing hazards. An alternative Fence route, proposed by the applicant. is to use the public right-of-way of Estero Road to connect with the currently proposed route on the private properties of Pellascio and Compadres de San Antonio at the coast. Although Estero Road serves only a few ownerships, so that normal traffic is limited, the proximity of the 18' nylon and metal Fence adjacent to interesting, abandoned, *Litter should be collected during the viewing phase for health and aesthetic reasons. **Estero Road iscounty-maintained for a portion of its length; it affords some views of the Fence on its originally proposed (GAVER property) alignment. However, the road supports only one-way traffic. Its use by 9] viewers would probably be discouraged. On the alternate Fence alignment along Estero Road, viewer control would probably be even more important. 192 and dilapidated farm buildings (although potentially attractive to photographers) would increase traffic, fire, and trespassing hazards. Therefore, Estero Road should be closed to general traffic or its use should at least be discouraged in any event, but especially if the Fence route is realigned to the Estero Road right of way. At Marsh Road, the Fence route crosses the road, creating an attraction where only a few cars can be accommodated. Therefore, a potential traffic hazard exists unless traffic is kept moving. Traffic should be kept moving on Franklin School Road, Middle Road (Slaughter House Road), and various other roads, as well as Marsh Road. On Middle Road, there is a small shoulder/pull-off with an unobstructed view to the Fence on a ridge to the north. On Petaluma/Valley Ford Road near Carroll Road, where the Fence runs parallel and close to the east-west road, there is no parking or stopping space on the right (south) side except for one car space over a culvert. Traffic movement may need aid here.* The Running Fence route crosses Petaluma/Valley Ford Road at the joining of Gericke (Jones) Road, near Americano Creek, a low point. West of Bloomfield, going east, is an unobstructed view of the Fence, at a limited space for car stopping, which makes this area potentially dangerous. Along the St. Anthony Farms property, there is also space forup to 10 cars along the right of way; these can take advantage of the view encountered there. There is also space for up to 4 cars further east. The shoulder is continuous (providing for more cars) past Roblar Road, where it ends as the view also ends (before bridge culvert) near the Raven property. The Fence route crosses Carmody (Smith) Road about 300 yards south of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road and continues behind farm struc- tures. In front of the Del Curto property is a large, apparently safe pull-out about 300' long, where the Fence view is fairly clear. Further east, the Fence crosses Petaluma/Valley Ford Road from the McGaughey property onto the Richter property. The Fence view is unobstructed. In addition, the shoulder of this road, separated from the main road- way by a white line, can accommodate cars for 1/8-1/4 mile. Motorists will lose sight of the Fence as it goes behind the Iverson property hills and trees, and then onto the Scott property where there is a clear view of the Fence at a distance from the road; the same shoulder is available for stopping cars. *By off-duty Sheriff's deputies (use of off-duty Sheriff's deputies or monitors will vary with time: day or night, weekend or weekday). The road system turns away from the Fence route on Walker Road. Near the intersection of the latter with Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, there is a clear view to the distant Fence, but it is an unsafe place to stop. Just before Petaluma/Valley Ford Road narrows a bit further on, there is a place for several cars (up to 5) to stop, just before reaching the line of eucalyptus trees* which parallel Walker Road. At the rise and the turn to left onto Walker Road, there is a view and a place for one car, after which traffic should keep moving. At the entrance to the Tresch property on Walker Road is a clear view to the Fence at a distance of about 3/4 mile for a span of about one mile, and the road shoulder can accommodate about 10 cars. Just beyond is a culvert providing space for one car on each side of the road for a view of the Fence, partially blocked by willow trees in the stream. The driveway of the Button property, opposite the Valena drive- way and adjacent to the Tresch property, is a stop for one car with a clear Fence view, but in conflict with the driveway, and therefore, with the use of private property. Beyond this point (further east) there is no place to stop for some distance. At the top of the knoll, there is a panoramic view of the Fence (looking back about a mile); however, without stopping space, this view presents a real traffic hazard. At the top of the hill, there is some view to the left and back with pull-outs for one car on each side of the road adjacent to the Brian property, and one more car space beyond the near eucalyptus trees. Where eucalyptus trees abut the road, there is shade--a temp- tation for stopping during the heat of late summer, but this is hazardous due to the lack of a place to stop. After the area of the eucalyptus trees, there is a partially obstructed view but there is no stopping place till the end of Walker Road (up to 3 cars). Just beyond Walker Road on Pepper (eastbound) there is ample shoulder for stopping, about 1/4 mile, accommodating up to approximately 40 cars and providing a view of the Fence at a distance of 3/4 to 1 mile. Along much of Pepper (between Walker and Meacham Roads)there is a clear Fence view at a distance of about 1/2 mile for a span of about 1/2 mile. A shoulder that may permit stopping runs alongside the road to the point where the view disappears. On Pepper Road, one car space at the culvert allows an unobstructed view of the Fence for a short distance, and one potentially hazardous space opposite the Aycock property also permits viewing. Opposite the Volkert driveway entrance is space for three cars on the shoulder before culvert. Opposite the Mattos property is a viewpoint for the Fence 1/4 mile away for length of about 1/4 mile. *On which several turkey vultures were observed on one occasion. 493 194 Near the intersection of Pepper and Meacham is an area of shade during part of the day from eucalyptus trees along the road. Stopping here is a temptation during the heat of late summer,* but lack of space may make this a traffic hazard. This point presents a clear view of Fence less that 1/4 mile distant for a length of 1/4 mile. Closer to the intersection is pull-out space for up to about 10 cars. Southbound traffic may continue on Pepper Road to Highway 101 to return to the center of the Bay Area. Although distant from the Fence, this part of Pepper Road presents some clear views of it. After the turn onto Meacham from Pepper, there is space for up to about 6 cars on shoulders with an unobstructed view. Due to lack of space and the traffic hazard beyond (driveways) there should be no stopping till the culvert beyond the first farmhouses. The Fence route crosses the road here, adding attraction and thus hazard. The traffic should be kept moving till just before the road to the dump ** at a cattle-loading area with space for about 3 cars. There is no view ahead here, but a clear view behind in the distance. Opposite the dump on Meacham Road* is space for up to approxi- mately 20 cars--to the top of the hill where pull-out space is very good. The view is panoramic and includes three different sections, each for about 1/4 mile distance, plus Meacham Hill about 2 miles away. Everett Road in the Happy Acres subdivision has a clear view of the Fence nearby and a panoramic view of the Fence on Meacham Hill. However, traffic should be controlled away from the houses and the unimproved roads of the subdivision. Approaching Stony Point Road, Meacham Road has ample shoulder all the way until just before the corner of Stony Point Road. The view is clear for a long distance, though semi-obstructed.t* *Heat and lack of shade (easterly part of route) or fog and wind (westerly part of route) and rise in gasoline prices may discourage some motorists from visiting and viewing the Fence. Likewise, TV coverage may either encourage or discourage viewing attendance. Many visitors may be satisfied with viewing only a small portion of the Running Fence rather than viewing the whole length in detail from two directions; this could relieve some potential congestion. **Generating traffic from 7 AM to 4 PM daily including Sunday. *Maximum speed limit is 40 mph. *+Although there is road construction in progress in 1975 on Stony Point Road and on Railroad Avenue (and Bloomfield Bridge on the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road), it is due to be completed by 1976. On Stony Point Road, about 1/4 mile from Meacham Road, the Running Fence crosses the road near the PG§&E Cotati Substation and runs uphill perpendicular to the road. There is space for about 10 cars with some view, and about 20 cars with no view, both with some hazard.* A culvert bridge over a gully (low point) again pro- vides space for one car to stop. At one half the distance from Meacham Road to Railroad Avenue is a clear view to Meacham Hill and the Fence. In the section of Stony Point Road facing Railroad Avenue, 6-8 cars can pull out to view the Fence in Meacham Hill. Space continues more or less to the corner of Railroad Avenue. The view is partially unobstructed. There is some space for stopping at Jewett Road, but it is hazardous, and there is some stopping space at driveway entrances, but this too is hazardous and also a conflict with use of private property, and so should be discouraged. Stony Point Road can lead to Highway 101 southbound via the Pepper Road on-ramp. A simplified graphic summary of the above detailed information can be found on the foldout map, Figure J-3, which includes view angles and potential hazards along the Running Fence route. Mitigation Viewers should be kept off private property and discouraged from public roads that present hazards: (1) roads that are not through-roads; (2) too-narrow roads; (3) roads without turn or easy connection to other roads Monitors and off-duty Sheriff's deputies will be hired by the applicant to protect private property and to guide traffic flow** The applicant does not propose to provide parking areas. Therefore, in general, traffic should be kept moving smoothly. For those points where views of the Running Fence are especially clear or panoramic, the tendency of the curious (especially photographers) would be to stop. If there is no place to stop, a potential hazard exists and traffic should be kept moving. Sheriff's deputies will guide traffic while monitors (college students and others) will *Stony Point Road has a record of accidents, especially during 195 nighttime (1973). **Only uniformed police officers can control traffic on public roads per se. 196 guard private property using two-way communication for assistance. The number of persons controlling traffic and protecting private property will be determined on the basis of need (100 anticipated on 8-hour shifts). Need will vary with time: (1) weekday vs. weekend day; (2) day vs. night. Road construction and maintenance activities should not be scheduled during the viewing period. All planned Sonoma County roadwork in the Fence route area will be completed by September 1976 (Sonoma County Public Works Department, letter of August 26, 1975 to ESA), most of it in calendar 1975. If private parking is provided by private landowners* (separate from any part of the applicant's proposal or plan), guidance should be received in advance by the landowner from public authorities** in order not to create more traffic problems because of egress and ingress conflict on roads. If traffic becomes too congested for stopping for viewing and photographing (see Traffic/Circulation/Parking Section), stopping, except for emergencies , could be prohibited; even whole roads could be closed to visitors.*” If the viewing/stopping hazard becomes dangerous to public safety, even after employment of the suggested mitigation measures (here and in the Traffic/Circulation/Parking Section), the ultimate mitigation measure can be employed: remove the Fence panels (especially prior to the first weekend) before the end of the viewing period. The applicant has agreed to this condition in advance; the decision will be made by Captain Denton. *Some landowners have stated interest in providing parking on their land. **Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California State Highway Patrol, Santa Rose Area; Sonoma County Traffic Engineer; Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. *Road closing, with the exception of the Estero Road situation, may be unworkable. The applicant has stated that he will not accept road closures (exception of Estero Road) as part of the project, because of their additional impacts. Instead, he accepts removal of the panels as the ultimate mitigation measure. Appendix k* Traffic/Circulation/Parking Details and Background Setting** Beginning at the project's east end, the principal traffic-way for viewing the Running Fence will be via U.S. 101 (Freeway), West Railroad Avenue, Stony Point Road, Meacham Road, Pepper Road, Walker Road, Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, Franklin School Road, and Estero Road near the project's west end [See Figures J-1 and J-2 (Appendix J) and 6 (Section II.A.8 and Appendix K)]. To reach these roads, most traffic will approach from the south on the Freeway (Route 101), exiting at one of three interchanges: the Old Redwood Highway inter- change at Denman Flat and then along Stony Point Road; Railroad Avenue; or Roblar/West Sierra Avenue and Stony Point Road. The return to the freeway may be by these same routes except that, instead of using Railroad Avenue, traffic must use an on-ramp at Pepper Road to the south of Railroad Avenue (see Figures J-2 and 6). From the north, those who leave the freeway will use the Gravenstein Highway (Route 116) ramps and then Old Redwood Highway (Railroad Avenue) or Stony Point Road. Those southbound motorists who first decide to leave the freeway after noticing the Fence would use the Denman Flat Interchange. Those who do not leave the freeway may view parts of the Fence from the freeway itself. Twenty-four hour weekday traffic counts by Caltranst and Sonoma Countytt, available at the start of this EIR project, are as follows: Count Freeway (U.S. 101) 36,000 to 52,000+ State Highway Route 1 2,200 to 3,400t Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 700 to 3,400+tt Stony Point Road 1,500++ Pepper Road 240+t+ West Railroad Avenue 267+t *This Appendix is based on the calculations and judgment of Donald K. Goodrich, Transportation and Traffic Engineer (Consultant to ESA), except where other contributors are specifically identified. **The environmental setting can be presented only if the poten- tially involved traffic network is first delineated. +1973 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System, by Caltrans. 197 +tSonoma County Traffic Department, 1973-July 1975. = —_— - vuey “vv “Vv dL Lqowojny 33e}3S eLUUOJL]Le) BYX JO uotsstuwuad Aq padnpoudeu dew d1seg 2 “Kempeou payediput Bulrzij14n p AC SUOJLSLA BOUeT JO % SazeILpUT « eS ane ein sauWwe 0 “1 Anu) <> ‘ j Nez \ z : SaTvWol {- i Se @ (ov3a NoTIIA aay ebapog ee Yoox “py LOoyss UL{yUe4 re pioj Aal len : / \3 ‘= f es 2, - é "4, oe) wes oo “SAY pROULLeY “MOY y a es ee 2 = ¢ “SAY RPQUSUS “Oe a as GuO4 AZTIWA s MO ee 2 "Py 4B LGOY 17 40, Ava v93008 % —< Pe See oe eee 3 ud LYSNHOY : "PY JULOg Au0IS : Senet s - Sr cotele Ea 2 Aemssaudx Je AUUO =] oN a = ro 4 7 d a Y xy 9E ) ; 3h _ Save ZOOS Nahe 062) AR eee ee 3 a fe 3 5 >: S 3 30 “y <= ay :2}U9p1939 eel * Ca AAU ay oor 17 i" 5a4a2yy Swe TAVIMTWM cy ahs uojei ‘ “> r —— -—_——__ TS Ws 01 shes wo g JAQWD Ne InCd g ‘os Bless os 77 : Saiisene poomurou “1 YY se ‘© NNH IMA Sean wa i) Ti ae, ou Traffic counts on the principal traffic-way and on nearby roadways were taken in August and September 1975 by the Sonoma County Depart- ment of Public Works, in order to anticipate normal traffic volumes in September 1976, when the Fence will be in place. The counts were taken at the following locations*; at the time of preparation of this Draft EIR, data for the segments marked ''**'"' were available. They are summarized in Table K-1. Stony Point Road, south of Meacham Road Railroad Avenue, east of Route 101 Meacham Road, east of Pepper Road Pepper Road, east of Walker Road Walker Road, east of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road** Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road** Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Franklin School Road (Hwy 1 segment )** Franklin School Road, north (east) of Estero Road** Bodega Avenue (Tomales Road), west of Pepper Road** Petaluma/Valley Ford Road (Bodega Avenue), east of Pepper Road Highway 1, just south of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road** From all these counts and from personal observations, it appears that most project-area roads currently operate well below capacity. Exceptions may be certain segments of the freeway and of Route 1 on Sundays, particularly in the summer months. The principal traffic-way for viewing the Fence is composed of five basic road types (See Figure J-2, Appendix J): 1. Four-lane freeway 2. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe and shoulder delineated by edge stripe 3. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe but without shoulder 4. Two-lane roads with neither centerline stripe nor shoulder 5. One-lane road A review of accident records furnished by Sonoma County indi- cates an unusually high percentage of nighttime accidents on Stony Point Road in 1973, showing a possible need for after-dark road delineation. However, the pattern did not recur in 1974.+ *U.S. highways may not be counted by local jurisdictions. **Count data available at time of preparation of this Draft EIR. +Sonoma County Traffic Department Accident Reports for 1973 and 1974. 199 TABLE K-1 TRAFFIC COUNTS, AUGUST 30 - SEPTEMBER 22, 1975* (SONOMA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT) Weekda Weekend or Holida Walker Road, East of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 77-103 95-139 13-19 Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, East of Jones (Gericke) Road 1417-2027] 132-181 2859**-3451** 264**-357** Highway 1, North of Bridge over Estero Americano (Just South of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road ) 696-866 1224-1263 144-154 Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, East of Franklin School Road (Highway 1 Segment in Valley Ford) | 1774-2325] 187-216 3013-3933 293-457 Franklin School Road, East of Estero Road 184-205 344 5] Bodega Avenue, West of Pepper Road (Short Segment of Petaluma/ Valley Ford Road at Two Rock Ranch) 4213-5190) 432-470 6737** -7363**| 652**-746** *Ranges indicated, where several days' counts were made. **Labor Day Weekend. 200 Impact 1) Expected Visitors.* To arrive at an estimate of the size of the crowd that will be attracted by the Fence the history of special events in Northern California and at Christo's previous showings was investigated. The results appear below: Approximate SPECIAL EVENT Daily Visitation** (persons ) (Bay Area/California) Sonoma Fair 40 ,000 Sears Point Raceway 4,000 Napa Wine Festival 10,000 Composite of all West Marin Recreation Areas 50 ,000 Sonoma-Marin Fair 15,000 Napa Area Winery 1,500 Calaveras District Fair (Frog Jumping) 12,000 Santa Rosa Art Fair 1,000 Christo's Showing Sydney, Australia 10,000 Kassel, Germany + 8,000 Rifle, Colorado 10,000 *Traffic problems are not expected during construction and removal of the Fence. The limited number of construction vehicles will make little use of the roadways, except for arrival and departure each day. As noted in Appendix J, little visitor traffic is expected during construction and removal. ** Information obtained by ESA from special-event sponsors. Attendance data for the Renaissance Pleasure Faire (Black Point area of Marin County) are not available. Faire staff members state that they are considered confidential information. Since the Faire runs through the month of September, there is a potential traffic conflict between Fence and Faire traffic, particularly on Highway 101 south of Highway 37. +An exhibition with 60 other artists. 201 202 A preliminary estimate of the visitor demand generated by the Running Fence has been made on the basis of crowd data from previous events, the distance of the Fence route from Bay Area population centers, and the probable sources of Fence visitors. It must be emphasized that this estimate is a matter of judgment rather than calculation; the Running Fence will be a unique event, with no real precedent to serve as a basis for extrapolation from the past. Factors taken into account in the estimation of numbers of visitors and the ways in which they will disperse to view the Fence include the following: e The Fence will be visible during all daylight hours for its proposed two-week display period. This distinguishes it from single-occurrence events, such as sports events or rock concerts, and makes it more like county fairs and similar occurrences. e Unlike extended-duration events that occur at a fixed site, the Fence will be visible at numerous points from over 40 miles of public roads. e Although Christo's past projects drew relatively low public attendance (leading, to the best of our knowledge, to no unacceptable traffic congestion), the total number of visitors attracted by the Fence cannot be ascertained with certainty because of demographic differences between the Bay Area and the sites of the prior projects. e@ Many viewers, even among those making a special trip to view the Fence, may be satisfied with the view they receive from the main approach routes, Highways 101 and 1, and therefore will not disperse onto the cross-county traffic- way . e Total attendance will depend on publicity to date, parti- cularly that associated with the environmental review process, but also that associated with museum and lecture events involving the applicant. It may depend even more on the same kinds of publicity in the future. @ Variation in daily attendance during the two-week display period will depend on media publicity immediately prior to and during that period. It is likely that attendance will be higher on weekends than during the week, and that it will build up over the two-week period, so that the peak day will be the second Sunday, all other factors being equal. The resulting estimate of the total number of visitors on the peak day (presumably the second Sunday) is expressed in the following in terms of the probability of occurrence of several levels of attendance: VISITOR DEMAND ON PEAK DAY Probability of Occurrence Number (Judgment ) 15,000 (5,000 cars)* 60% 30,000 (10,000 cars)* 30% 50,000 (16,700 cars)* 5% 2) Direction of Approach. Explanation (probable) (possible) (top demand, though only 30,000 may be able to arrive, due to limitations of road network) The origin and directional flow of visitors to the Fence viewing area can be estimated by comparing data from West Marin and Sonoma County attractions. The origin of visitors to recrea- tional areas in western Marin County is tabulated below: ORIGIN OF VISITORS TO WEST MARIN RECREATIONAL AREAS Percent of County Visitors Alameda Contra Costa Marin 2 Napa San Francisco i San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Solano Sonoma Other OonNDODN f&OrFrF A SONWFHOAHLOONM to TOTAL 100.0 Source: Table 4, ''The Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study Model'' (Area 1 and Area 3 Reports, 1975). Three visitors per car (estimate for recreational travel). 203 204 Because the Running Fence is almost entirely in Sonoma County, it can be expected to attract a greater percentage of Sonoma County residents and a lesser percentage of Marin County residents than do West Marin recreational sites. Therefore, it is anticipated that during the viewing period the percentages for Marin and Sonoma counties will be interchanged (i.e., 21 percent of the Fence viewer trips will originate in Sonoma County and 5 percent in Marin County). A license-plate survey conducted for Sonoma county on Route 1 between Doran County Park and Salt Point State Park confirms this estimate of visitor origins: Origin of Visitors Percent of Visitor Vehicles Sonoma County ZS Rest of Bay Area ay Rest of California Sil Out of State 7 Source: Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin These data indicate that about 80 percent of the Fence visitor vehicles will approach the viewing area from the south and about 20 percent will approach from the north.* It is anticipated that the viewers upon reaching the viewing area will distribute themselves over the local road network (see Figures J-2 and 6) according to the following estimate: Roadway Percent of Visitor Vehicles West Railroad Avenue 15 Stony Point Road (between Meacham Road and Route 101) 35 Meacham Road--Pepper Road--Walker Road--Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 20 Franklin School Road--Whitacker Bluff Road 1S Route 1 north of Valley Ford 5 Route 1 south of Valley Ford 15 Route 101 north of Gravenstein Highway Sse Route 101 south of Old Redwood Highway interchange at Denman Flat 55** Dispersed among other roads 20 *Detailed assumptions about visitor access and viewing routes appear in Table K-2, following. These were generated by ESA as input for energy-consumption calculations. **Visitor traffic on the section of Highway 101 between Gravenstein Highway and Denman Flat may be as much as 65 percent of the total, de- pending on visitor decisions on where to exit. "a0ueT JU} 0} ODSLIUBUY UeS wouf Ssadde sng asn suabuassed ule 4o %OzZ auinsse (uoLjIas Abuauy) UoLJdwnsuod [any JO SUOLze[NdLeDx *suoLze,nd ed pue suoLzdwnsse ySq :adunos, 6L°/18°/0° 6L°/18° 000‘ LE oe 2g J1VLS 40 1NO SIWLOL 0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 296 L€ 92 08 I wouj unozag 0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 0 0 9L LOL SM wouj 4unojzaqg 00°1/0°/0° 00°1/0° 000‘0€ 000‘€ OL aoua4 MaLA 02 FLSLA 39041 a7e7S JO 3NO *49auI0 €£°/L9°/x SEO’: 000‘89L = LEZ VINYOSI1WI SYSHLO IWLOL 0S°/0S*/x 0S°/0S° 008‘ 9EL 006 2SL BLUUOZLLeQ UsBYZNOS 0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 00v‘ OE 00t 9/ Aa, LeA utnbeor ues -O}USWeUDeS 0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 069 0€2 € Ayunoy znug ejues PLuUUOFL Le) *49Y70 0°/00°L 000 ‘8b == LSv SAILNNOD W3YV AVE YSHLO TWLOL 0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°1 129 vol 9 our los 0°/06°/0L° 0°/00°1 ozs‘ LL Ost v9 eue|) eZURS 0°/06°/OL° 0°/00°L 0069 OSL Ov 09}eW URS 0°/08°/02° 0°/00°L O2Z‘ tl 08 8 OOS LouRYy UeS 0°/00°1/0° 0°/00°L Ovb by OL eden 0°/06°/OL* 0°/00°L 802s v8 29 e380) e4qU0) 0°/06°/OL° 0°/00°L 0ve‘s vOl G8 epowe Ly sol uno) Roy eg 49410 0° /u8*/02" 0/00°L 026‘OL ev 092 —- S8L}UNOD UL4eW pue eWIOUOS (sa,lw uabuessed) Sa, lu) dluj S4O7LSIA COOOL Le}O, ssaddy punoy ssad0y /SAOYLSLA (4Le/ojne/snq) (4Le/ozne) g a}euuaz Ly yy 97eU92 LY (u0L}Deus) BpoW ssaddy ONIMJIA ONY SS3DDV YOLISIA--SNOITLdWNSSV +2-% J1aVl 205 206 Hourly traffic variations in general can be expected to resemble those of summer Sunday recreational travel, e.g., arrivals starting in mid-morning and continuing until about 3 PM. Similar patterns can be expected on weekdays and weekend days, with the latter reach- ing a higher level. The weekend to weekday variation will generally follow the two-to-one ratio observed for visitors to the Sonoma County Fair and Sonoma County wineries. While the vast majority of Fence viewers will view the Fence from land vehicles, chiefly autos, some viewers may approach the Fence route by air and water. Visitor arrival by boat to see the coastal area is not expected to be heavy. The North Coast Harbor Study for the Army Corps of Engineers (by JHK §& Associates) showed that few recreational boaters are willing to leave the shelter of San Francisco Bay and brave the long unsheltered route to Bodega Bay. 3) Roadway Capacity. Roadways near the Fence route have a limited amount of capacity available to absorb new traffic generated by Fence viewers. The traffic impact of the viewing period will depend upon the amount of vehicle usage relative to the capacities of specific roadways. Vehicle usage is expected to vary from hour to hour and day to day. Table K-3 illustrates the relationship between level of service (or driving ease) and hourly traffic volumes (capacities) for two- lane rural roads. The Table is appropriate for the two-lane roads in the project area during normal, non-Fence periods. However, the actual capacity under the conditions anticipated during the viewing period may be one-half of these.* The narrower Type 3 and 4 road- ways are assigned the same traffic capacity as the wider Type 2 (Setting Section) because parking would generally be prohibited from the former and allowed along the Type 2 roadway. Route 101 has been estimated by CALTRANS to have a one-way peak hour capacity of 3,000 vehicles on a viewing day.* Too much traffic compared to road capacity (i.e., Level of Service E to F) could lead to stop-and-go flow, traffic backups onto the freeway, cars running out of gasoline, boiling radiators, traffic accidents, and entrapment of emergency vehicles. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the possibility of network capacity overload under the peak visitor conditions estimated above. *Letter to Mr. George Kovatch, Sonoma County, from Mr. L. Newman, CALTRANS, February 5, 1975. TABLE k-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE, TWO-LANE RURAL ROAD Hourly 2-way Level of Volume Service Operating Characteristics 400 A Ideal flow 900 B Free flow 1,400 C Stable flow; some car-following; average speed 30 mph; a common service level for design 1,700 D Approaching unstable flow; average speed, 20 mph, greatly restricted due to car-following 2,000 E Maximum volume attainable, average speed 10 mph. Level E is not likely to be attained. Operation may go directly from D to F less than F Forced, congested flow with unpredictable 2,000* characteristics. Stop and go, long queues Source: Adapted from page 308, "A Policy on Design of Urban Highway and Arterial Streets", American Association of State Highway Officials The descriptive operating characteristics apply to other road types, including freeways. However, the associated traffic volumes change with road type. *As traffic demand exceeds 2,000, the resulting turbulence reduces flow to less than 2,000. 207 208 4) Assessment of Possible Capacity Overloads Due to Fence Visitor Traffic. Accurate assessment of the potential traffic impacts of the Running Fence is precluded by a combination of uncertainties, including those pertaining to the following: e Maximum likely levels of visitor traffic e Ratio between peak week-end visitor traffic and week-day visitor traffic e Hours when Fence visitor traffic would occur; percent of daily visitor traffic in the peak (visitor) hour e Non-visitor ("normal") traffic during the display period e Visitor-traffic splits on the affected road network e Actual capacity of individual segments of the affected road network, under potential traffic conditions during Fence display e Variation in capacity among the different road types in the affected road network Therefore, the approach taken was to examine several critical elements of the road network, under a series of assumptions.* The road elements evaluated were: (a) Highway 101; (b) Walker Road; (c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road; and (d) Highway 1, east of Franklin School Road (in Valley Ford itself). Stony Point Road and Bodega Avenue. were also investigated, but with less confidence in the imput data. The assumptions were as follows: o Total visitor 'demand" on the peak day (second Sunday) is 10,000 vehicles (the 30% probability figure) o While the normal weekend/weekday ratio of daily traffic throughout the road network is about two to one, the ratio of the peak-visitor-day (second-Sunday) Fence visitor traffic to the Fence visitor traffic on the first day (weekday) of display is about four to one. That is, interest will develop as the display period goes on. o Visitor-traffic splits throughout the road network are as estimated earlier in this Appendix. o Visitor traffic in the peak visitor hour is 15% of daily visitor traffic. For "normal" traffic, the figure is 10%. *This examination was performed by ESA staff, after the receipt, on October 17, 1975, of the tratfic count data summarized in Table K-1. The resuits confirmed the main conclusions of Donald K. Goodrich, Consultant to ESA, which had been based on the limited data available in July, 1975. e@ In the absence of data on existing weekend traffic on Highway 101, weekday maximum traffic levels can be assumed to apply (as the setting) on weekends. This is not unreasonable for a freeway segment that combines business , commute and recrea- tional traffic. e@ Highway 101 peak hour capacity in the vicinity on a viewing day is , as noted above, 3,000 vehicles (one-way), or 6,000 vehicles (two-way) . e Capacity of the two-lane local roads during the viewing period is, as noted above, one-half of the normal capacity, because visitors will slow down and/or park to view the Fence. The approach used in estimating traffic levels of service re- sulting from the addition of Fence visitor traffic to 'normal" traffic was as follows: e The calculation was for the peak (PM) hour on the second Sunday. e The resulting peak hour total flow was compared to the above criteria for capacity. For the two-lane rural roads, the first comparison was against the flow criteria for Level of Service C, as reduced by 50% to account for conditions during viewing. e@ Once the situation for the peak day (second Sunday) had been established, the situation on the average weekday could be assessed. This would be needed for the development of a contingency plan, to be based on traffic levels experienced after the fact) during the first weekdays of viewing. e The initial assumption was that the visitor demand on the second Sunday would be 10,000 vehicles (the 30% probability figure). The results of the evaluation were as follows (the calculated flows represent normal traffic plus visitor traffic): a) Highway 101-- The peak-hour second-Sunday one-way flow in the segment of the freeway between Denman Flat and Gravenstein High- way would be about 3100 vehicles. This is greater than the capacity of 3000 stated above. That is, if the visitor demand reached 10,000 cars per day, Highway 101 would reach Level ot Service F. un Highway 101 south of Denman Flat, the flow would be slightly lower, but still above the stated capacity. Since Highway 101 is the principal access route to the Fence area, its northbound approach carrying 55 percent of the total visitors and its southbound approach 209 210 carrying 15 percent of the total visitors, it appears to be the con- trolling element in capacity analysis and in California Highway Patrol decisions about requesting removal of the Fence. On weekdays, the freeway capacity would not be reached, whether the assumption used is a weekend/weekday visitor flow ratio of four to one or of two to one. On the other hand, if the 30 percent probability assumption of 10,000 visitor vehicles on the second Sunday is conservative, weekday flows could be high enough to indicate this possibility, while still remaining below capacity. b) Walker Road -- This segment of the (viewing) road network experiences very little traffic normally; however, the road is twisting and narrow (Type 4). The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 320 vehicles. This is well below the modified (50% reduction) capacity of 700 (for Level of Service C). Therefore, congestion should not be a problem, unless large numbers of visitors try to stop along the shoulders for views (or photos) of the Fence. Since the flows on the weekdays will be further below capacity, visitor behavior on those days can foreshadow the potential problems on the weekends, while not causing serious problems itself. c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road -- This segment of the (viewing) road network consists of both Type 2 and Type 3 road, but experiences much more traffic normally than does Walker Road. The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 660 vehicles. This is still below the capacity of 700 (for Level of Serivce C), but close enough so that congestion from parkers or even those who merely show down to view the Fence may be a problem. Again, experience on the first weekdays of the viewing period should provide clues to the levels and the behavior of the expected weekend traffic, and of their consequences. d) Highway 1, east of Franklin School Road (within the Town of Valley Ford -- This segment normally experiences higher traffic flows than does the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road segment above. The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 680 vehicles. The same considera- tions as those for Petaluma/Valley Ford Road to the east apply. Further complications may result from the presence of the commercial buildings along the road, coupled with the fact that the Running Fence route crosses this road within the town, providing a further attrac- tion that may lead visitors to pull over. e) Stony Point Road, north of Railroad Avenue -- The only available count for this road is a weekday figure, for the whole day, of 1500 vehicles. If the normal Sunday traffic is assumed to be the same, with 10 percent in the peak hour, then the peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow (normal traffic plus Fence visitors) would be about 675 vehicles, still below the Level C capacity of 700 vehicles. However, if the normal Sunday flow is assumed to be 3,000 vehicles, the total peak-hour flow would then be about 825 vehicles, close to the Level of Service D capacity of 850. This situation could create problems, particularly since perhaps one- half of the visitors northbound on Stony Point might attempt to turn left onto Meacham Road. Experience on the first weekdays would again provide guidance as to what could be expected later, while unacceptable congestion would probably not exist at the time. f) Bodega Avenue, west of Pepper Road -- This road segment is not part of the viewing-road network. However, it may be attractive as an access or departure road. Its existing Sunday peak-hour flow is about 750 (two-way), which would be above (worse than) Level of Service C, if the road were on the view network. Since it is not, the capacities of Table K-3 apply directly, so that existing Sunday peak-hour flow is between Levels of Service A and B. Even if as much as 35 percent of the total visitor flow were to use this approach (an extremely unlikely prospect), the peak-hour second-Sunday flow would still be below (better than) Level of Service C. The main conclusion above is that 10,000 visitor vehicles is the maximum that can be reasonably accommodated on the road network, and that the controlling feature is that this level of demand would cause Highway 101 to go to Level of Service F. Thus, a decision by the California Highway Patrol to request removal of the Running Fence could be made on the expectation that such levels would be reached on the first or second weekends, even if congestion had not built up to unacceptable levels during the first weekdays. The dominance of the potential Highway 101 buildup in the analysis and decision is confirmed by the earlier conclusions of Mr. Goodrich that a demand of 30,000 visitors (10,000 visitor vehicles) "produces Service Level 'F' on Highway 101 (remove Fence if over 30,000 antici- pated)". Mr. Goodrich had concluded also that, if as many as 35-40 percent of the visitor vehicles attempted to use the principal viewing traffic- way between Highways 101 and 1, the controlling road network would shift away from the freeway, even at somewhat lower flows. This is a more conservative judgment than the above analysis of individual segments would indicate. However, it takes into account the interior road network as a whole; of particular importance is the effect of left turns at different intersections, depending on whether the visitor vehicle is going from west to east or from east to west. Potential problems at specific locations, including those associated with "'attractive'' stopping places for viewing and/or photography, are discussed in detail in Appendix J. 211 212 Both analyses indicate, however, that with the expected gradual buildup of visitor interest there would be time to imple- ment a series of contingency plans, including the ultimate mitiga- tion of requiring removal of the Fence. Mr. Goodrich's suggested contingency plans are presented in the text (Section II A 8, Traffic/Circulation/Parking) . APPENDIX L ARCHAEOLOGY REPORT CONSULTING AND RESEARCH SERVICES, INC. August 21, 1975 Dr. Richard Cole Environmental Science Associates 1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California Dear Dr. Cole, Pursuant to your letter of authorization dated August 18, 1975, our firm has completed archaeological investigations for the proposed route of the Christo Running Fence project in Sonoma and Marin Counties, California. As outlined in our proposal letter of August 12, 1975, archival and reconnaissance research tasks were undertaken to determine what impacts the proposed project would have on archaeological resources. We are herein reporting to you the results of those investigations. Our first task, that of archival research, was accomplished by reviewing records of all archaeological sites which are known to be located within the vicinity of the proposed project. Those facilities which possess complete records of this type and as consulted by ACRS include the California Department of Parks and Recreation at Sacramento, Sonoma State University at Rohnert Park, and San Francisco State University at San Francisco. No known archaeological sites or resources were shown in these records to be within & mile near the proposed route of the Christo Running Fence project. Our second task, that of completing an in-field reconnaissance of those portions of the Running Fence route which would have a high probability of containing archaeological resources, was accomplished by walking over and visually inspecting the ground surface along those sections of the Running Fence route which will intersect with and cross over intermittent or permanent creek or estero courses. Included were the Estero Americano, Americano Creek, and all intermittent creeks along the Running Fence route. In addition, ACRS surveyed a number of sections along the Running Fence route which will traverse hill tops or ridges. Included were all hill tops and ridges along the 213 20 EVERGREEN AVENUE MILL VALLEY, CA 415 / 388-3175 214 project route from Stony Point Road to the project terminus at the Pacific Ocean. A corridor with a width of 100 feet was inspected along those sections of the Running Fence route which were examined. No indications of archaeological resources were observed or discovered during the visual surface recon- naissance efforts. It would appear, then, that the proposed project would have no prohibitive impacts upon archaeological resources. All areas along the Running Fence route which appeared to have a high probability of containing archaeological resources were subject to surface examinations as were areas with a more moderate probability of containing archaeological resources, i.e., the ridge and hill tops. No archaeological resources which would be impacted by the proposed project were found to be either within the records of known sites or in the route sections as surveyed by ACRS. Additionally, the nature of the project's construction design, specifically the placement of 3" support- ing posts and adjoining anchors at 62 foot intervals, would, even if an archaeological site were encountered, create such minor impacts as to be virtually negligable. If you should have any questions about our work, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, (tase, Stephen A. Dietz Principal SAD :ms APPENDIX M OCEAN ENGINEERING CHRISTO'S RUNNING FENCE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared By ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 17 October, 1975 Project Manager: Physical Oceanographer: Mr. Raymond L. Anderson Dr. Edward Thronton Senior Diver: Mr. Don Heacock 215 216 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Christo, an artist, has proposed the creation of an art work entitled RUNNING FENCE which will consist of a 26 mile, 20 foot high, nylon fence supported by steel pylons. RUNNING FENCE will follow a meandering course through southern Sonoma County terminating in the sea at a point south of the Sonoma-Marin County line and north of Tomales Bay (Map 1). RUNNING FENCE is essentially a series of extremely long nylon sheet hung from a 7/8" steel cable which is suspended between steel stanchions. It is proposed that the seaward terminus of the fence be suspended from a cable