4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS - Sacramento District - U.S. Army

4.0 Cumulative Impacts
No Action
Alt.
Alts. 1, 2, & 3
Alt. 4
The No Action Alternative would construct a smaller mixed-use development on the
project site. The contribution of the No Action Alternative to cumulative effects on visual
resources would be less than that of the Proposed Action. Based on the significance
criteria listed above and for the same reasons presented for the Proposed Action, the
alternative’s contribution to the cumulative effect would be significant. No feasible
mitigation measures are available to fully address the effect.
The cumulative contribution of each alternative (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) to cumulative
effects on aesthetics would be less than that of the Proposed Action as the amount of
development under these alternatives would be reduced compared to the Proposed
Action. However, based on the significance criteria listed above and for the same reasons
presented for the Proposed Action, the contribution would be significant. No feasible
mitigation measures are available to fully address the effect.
Alternative 4 would construct a project broadly similar to the Proposed Action on the
alternative site. The contribution of Alternative 4 to cumulative effects on aesthetics
would be less to that of the Proposed Action, except that the development at the
alternative site would be at a distance from existing development east of Fiddyment
Road. Based on the significance criteria listed above and for the same reasons presented
for the Proposed Action, the contribution would be significant. No feasible mitigation
measures are available to fully address the effect.
4.3.3 Agricultural Resources
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action
Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, presents the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action on
agricultural resources. The Proposed Action would result significant effects on agricultural resources
from the conversion of grazing land and strawberry fields. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1,
which would preserve open space to compensate for the loss of agricultural lands, would be
implemented to reduce this effect.
Current Status of the Resource
The loss of farmland is occurring throughout California, including in western Placer County. Since the
Placer County General Plan was adopted in 1994, areas within the project vicinity have changed from
being rural, undeveloped, or agricultural in nature to urban residential and commercial development.
Similarly, lands in the City of Roseville that were at one time in agricultural uses have since been
developed with urban uses. As discussed in Section 3.2, between 1992 and 2008, approximately
2,625 acres (1,062 hectares) of Prime Farmland in Placer County was converted to other uses. Sacramento
and Sutter Counties lost approximately 20,048 acres (8,113 hectares) and 5,593 acres (2,263 hectares),
respectively, of Prime Farmland during the same period (California Department of Conservation 1994
through 2008).
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-25 Sierra Vista Specific Plan Draft EIS
USACE #200601050 July 2012