Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Shorts School Road Am Antenna Structures 56

pm, which would make it unlikely for the proposed project lighting to impact golf course
visitors.

Final Adjusted Visual Quality Rating: 5.1 (down from 6.4)

Viewpoint 19
Under the Preferred Alternative, the eight antennas would be visible in the middleground within
the context of the Snohomish River Valley at a distance of 0.55 miles. Views of agricultural
fields, farms, houses, trees and the Snohomish River would remain dominant in the
middleground. The Cities of Snohomish and Everett and the Puget Sound would also remain
visible in the background.

The panoramic views of the Snohomish River Valley would remain memorable under the
Preferred Alternative. The eight antennas would encroach somewhat on the view. However, the
panoramic nature of the view and the fact that the viewers would be moving, make it unlikely
that the antennas would be perceived as dominant elements in the landscape. As a result, the
intactness level would remain high. Likewise, the panoramic nature of the view would also
reduce the amount of disruption by the proposed project to the existing coherent visual pattern,
and the unity level would remain high.

Lighting
In the evening, the two blinking, red hazard warning lights at the apex of the tallest antenna and
the three smaller marker lights at the mid-point of the antenna would be visible in the
middleground from Viewpoint 19. Because the blinking hazard lights and the three smaller
marker lights are designed to be seen from the air, they would likely create a visual distraction to
recreational balloonists overhead. However, because the balloon companies generally operate
between dusk and dawn, it is unlikely that the proposed project lighting would severely impact
their customers, and the red lighting is a safety benefit to the balloon operators.

Final Adjusted Visual Quality Rating: 6.4 (down from 7.0)

3.1.6 Alternative 2

Viewpoint 1
The visual impacts under Alternative II would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative
from Viewpoint 1 (Figure A.1). Although, because in Alternative II the number of antennas
would be reduced, the vividness, intactness, and unity ratings would be slightly better than those
ratings under the Preferred Alternative. Lighting impacts from the 349-foot antenna would not
differ between alternatives.

Final Adjusted Visual Quality Rating: 3.8 (down from 4.3)

Viewpoint 2
The visual impacts under Alternative II would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative
from Viewpoint 2 (Figure A.2). Although, because in Alternative II the number of antennas
would be reduced, the vividness, intactness, and unity ratings would be slightly better than those
<<Prev                                                       Home                                                         Next>>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Pages 72-94 are photos
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1