Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 27, 2016 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsCOMM-WRC-00031 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, June 27, 2016 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside k?... COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ben Benoit, Chair / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Deborah Franklin, Vice Chair / Art Welch, City of Banning Karen Spiegel / Randy Fox, City of Corona Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Frank Johnston / Brian Berkson, City of Jurupa Valley Scott Mann / John Denver, City of Menifee Yxstian Gutierrez / Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Daryl Busch / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Andrew Kotyuk / Crystal Ruiz, City of San Jacinto Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V kPa STAFF oof Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director �° AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects related to Western Riverside County and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www. rctc. orq AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, June 27, 2016 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.orq. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ATTENDANCE / ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee June 27, 2016 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 23, 2016 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 06-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project, Making Responsible Agency Findings, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approving the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project"; 2) Approve the 1-15 Express Lanes project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT THROUGH A DESIGN -BUILD CONTRACT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 37 1) Authorize staff, subject to approval by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to issue Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 16-31-057-00 and future addenda to design and construct the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project through a design -build (DB) contract; 2) Approve the selection criteria for the selection of the apparent best value (ABV) proposer; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the top -ranked ABV proposer for DB services, based on the criteria identified in the RFP and any addenda, and to conduct subsequent limited negotiations; Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee June 27, 2016 Page 3 4) Authorize the Executive Director to pay, to the shortlisted DB proposers that meet the RFP criteria, a stipend of $275,000 per proposer or a total amount not to exceed $825,000 for all shortlisted proposers after Commission award of the DB contract; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. AGREEMENT NO. 16-31-102-00 WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO FUND A PROJECT STUDY REPORT EQUIVALENT DOCUMENT FOR THE ETHANAC ROAD/STATE ROUTE 74/NICHOLS ROAD CORRIDOR Page 44 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-102-00 with the county of Riverside (County) for $2 million of 2009 Measure A Western County New Corridors Program funds for the preparation of a Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRE) document for the Ethanac Road/State Route 74/Nichols Road Corridor, for which the County will serve as lead agency; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve an increase of $1 million in the fiscal year 2016/17 budgeted preliminary engineering expenditures; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. STATE ROUTE 71/91 INTERCHANGE — CITY OF CORONA UTILITY AGREEMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 69 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-070-00 with the city of Corona (Corona) in the revised amount of $588,825, plus a revised contingency amount of $150,207, for a revised total amount not to exceed $736,032; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve an increase of $523,300 in fiscal year 2016/17 budgeted federal revenues and right of way expenditures for utility relocation costs; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee June 27, 2016 Page 4 11. AMENDMENT FOR ON -CALL RAIL OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 77 1) Approve an increase of $2 million for the following agreements for the continued support of on -call rail operations services for a revised amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $4 million and amendments to extend the agreements for an additional two-year term; a) Agreement No. 12-25-022-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 12-25-022-00, with HDR Engineering, Inc.(HDR); b) Agreement No. 12-25-035-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 12-25-035-00, with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (Parsons Brinckerhoff); and c) Agreement No. 12-25-036-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 12-25-036-00, with STV Incorporated (STV); 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultants under the terms of the agreements; 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. AMENDMENT TO ON -CALL STATION REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 80 1) Approve an increase of $850,000 for the following agreements for continued support of on - call station repair and maintenance services for a total amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $2.1 million; a) Agreement No. 12-24-085-00 with Process Cellular Inc. (ProCell); and b) Agreement No. 12-24-116-00 with Braughton Construction Co Inc. (Braughton); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee June 27, 2016 Page 5 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, July 25, 2016, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL June 27, 2016 County of Riverside, District I Present Absent 0 County of Riverside, District V O City of Banning City of Corona City of Eastvale City of Jurupa Valley City of Menifee Z( 0 a City of Norco 0 City of Perris ,� 0 City of San Jacinto 0 City of Wildomar 0 0 City of Moreno Valley AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, May 23, 2016 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Ben Benoit at 1:34 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Deborah Franklin led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Ben Benoit Daryl Busch Deborah Franklin Berwin Hanna Kevin Jeffries Adam Rush 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members Absent Yxstian Gutierrez Frank Johnston Andrew Kotyuk Scott Mann Karen Spiegel Commissioner Franklin announced that Southern California Association of Governments is hosting its 27th annual demographic workshop on Monday, June 13, at the USC Price School of Public Policy. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes May 23, 2016 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — APRIL 25, 2016 M/S/C (Rush/Hanna) to approve the minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. RATIFY EXPENDITURES FOR CONSTRUCTION ZONE ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND OTHER STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the details to ratify expenditures for the construction zone enhanced enforcement program and other state furnished materials for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project. M/S/C (Jeffries/Ashley) to: 1) Ratify the scope of state furnished materials (SFM) defined in the design -build cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-070-00, as amended, between the Commission and Caltrans for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to include Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) and other SFM in the amount of $4.3 million, plus a contingency amount of $400,000, for a total amount not to exceed $4.7 million; 2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. RIVERSIDE 91 EXPRESS LANES ORDINANCE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF TOLL VIOLATIONS Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager, presented the details of the Riverside 91 Express Lanes ordinance for enforcement of toll violations. Jennifer Crosson clarified for Commissioner Kevin Jeffries that the Commission will follow the laws put into place by the Legislature to allow the exemption of the fire department when responding to calls. M/S/C (Hanna/Busch) to: 1) Approve the introduction of and introduce Ordinance No. 16-001, "An Ordinance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing Ordinance No. 16-001 Relating to the Administration of RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes May 23, 2016 Page 3 Tolls and the Enforcement of Toll Violations for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes"; 2) Approve the toll evasion penalties for a violation of Ordinance No. 16- 001 in the amounts identified in Schedule A of Ordinance No. 16-001; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. SECTION 214 FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of the Section 214 funding agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers for Interstate 15 Express Lanes project. M/S/C (Franklin/Jeffries) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-096-00 between Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District, for Section 214 funding agreement in the amount of $15,000, plus a contingency amount of $45,000, for a total amount not to exceed $60,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AGREEMENT WITH NOSSAMAN LLP FOR ON -CALL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR SERVICES Lisa DaSilva presented the scope of the agreement with Nossaman LLP for on -call strategic partnership advisor services. In response to Commissioner Jeffries questions regarding the current agreement with Nossaman, Lisa DaSilva stated the current agreement is $8.4 million. This is the tenth amendment and the majority of the funds were spent on the 91 Project. M/S/C (Franklin/Ashley) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-028-13, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. 06-66-028-00, with Nossaman LLP (Nossaman) for the on -call strategic partnership advisor services by extending the contract term to December 31, 2020, and augmenting the agreement in the amount of $5.7 million, plus a contingency amount of $300,000, for an additional amount of $6 million, and a total amount not to exceed RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes May 23, 2016 Page 4 $14,352,935; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RESOLUTION 16-011 REGARDING THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY GOALS AND TOLL POLICIES Jennifer Crosson presented the details of Resolution No. 16-011 regarding the 1-15 Express Lanes toll policy goals and toll policies. In response to Commissioner Jeffries question regarding future Measure A revenue usage, Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, stated the Commission is using $68 million of Measure A as part of the project on a go forward basis. There is an eight - year period from start of financing, 2017-2025, where the project will get an annual Measure A payment. The Commission is not paying Measure A debt since it is not purchasing Measure A bonds and paying interest. M/S/C (Jeffries/Franklin) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Interstate 15 Express Lanes Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies" and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. At this time, Commissioner Marion Ashley stepped out of the meeting. 12. INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Michael Blomquist presented the details of the 1-15 Express Lanes investment grade traffic and revenue study. Michael Blomquist introduced Sheldon Mar from Stantec, to present the findings on the traffic and revenue study. Sheldon Mar presented the following areas: • Toll road fees and discounts; • Traffic counts and travel times; and • Growth forecasts for the surrounding area. In response to Commissioner Jeffries question about when the traffic samples were taken, Sheldon Mar stated Stantec does very detailed traffic studies within the course of RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes May 23, 2016 Page 5 one or two weeks and varying seasonality factors were taken into account. In June 2015, when Stantec studied the corridor, traffic volumes were slightly lighter than normal but close to the average. M/S/C (Rush/Hanna) to: 1) Adopt the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. At this time, Commissioner Ashley rejoined the meeting. 13. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, presented the details of the proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2016/17. M/S/C (Ashley/Rush) to: 1) Adopt the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget, which results in a total operating and capital subsidy of $19,233,000 from the Commission; 2) Support an amendment to the FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating and capital budget in an amount not to exceed $6 million for the expansion of the Riverside Downtown Layover Facility and additional track improvements on the corridor; 3) Receive and file a report on the Commission's portion of the FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating and capital budget; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SUPERVISION M/S/C (Ashley/Franklin) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-094-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County in an amount not to exceed $793,181; 2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENT RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes May 23, 2016 Page 6 M/S/C (Ashley/Franklin) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-053-05, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 11-45-053-00, with Tri-City Towing, Inc. (Tri-City) to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 7 for an additional amount of $60,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1,110,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS M/S/C (Ashley/Franklin) to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, to the existing Riverside, Riverside II, and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 06-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project, Making Responsible Agency Findings, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approving the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project"; 2) Approve the 1-15 Express Lanes project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1-15 Express Lanes project proposes to design and construct one to two express lanes mostly in the undeveloped median from Cajalco Road in the city of Corona to the State Route 60 interchange in the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley. Project improvements include the widening of 11 bridges, drainage tie-ins, toll collection system and infrastructure, and soundwalls. DISCUSSION: Under CEQA, an initial study (IS) is prepared to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on information in the IS, if any impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is prepared. In 2012, HDR Engineering, Inc. began preparing a MND and the supporting technical studies such as biological, cultural, Native American coordination, visual, noise, hazardous waste, traffic, and air quality to comply with CEQA. The outcome of these studies resulted in a less than significant impact in most areas. In the remaining areas, no additional feasible mitigation measures within the Commission's authority are feasible to reduce the environmental impacts Agenda Item 7 1 of the project to less than significant levels. These outcomes are in accordance with a MND finding. A combined notice announcing the Notice of Intent and Availability to Adopt a MND was published in the Press Enterprise, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, and La Prensa on July 29 and 31, 2015, informing the public of the proposed project and the start of the 30-day review period. A second notice, Announcement of Public Hearing, was published in the same newspapers on August 5 and 7, 2015, for a public hearing that was held at the Fairfield Inn and Suites in Norco on August 12, 2015. Notices announcing the public hearing were mailed to residents within a 500-foot radius of the project; federal, state, regional, and local agencies and elected officials; interested groups, organizations, and individuals; and utilities and service providers. During the public review and comment period, 64 comments were received and addressed in the final MND, which was issued by Caltrans on May 4, 2016. The final MND is available on the Commission's website. A notice of determination (NOD) and environmental document transmittal was filed by Caltrans with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research on May 9, 2016. By filing the NOD with the State Clearinghouse, the Caltrans CEQA 30-day challenge period ended on June 8, 2016. No challenges were received. NEXT STEPS: Once the MND is adopted and approved by the Commission, staff will file a NOD with the County Clerk. This starts a 30-day statute of limitations on Commission court challenges to project approval under CEQA. Staff will then continue to move forward with completion of the procurement process for the toll services provider and the design -builder contracts. Future actions to approve the award of the toll services provider contract and the design -build contract is anticipated by early 2017 and spring 2017, respectfully. There is no financial impact for approval of the MND. Attachment: 1) Resolution No. 16-012 2) 1-15 Express Lanes Project IS with MND / Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact - Enclosed on CD Agenda Item 7 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONSIDERING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT, MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission"), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), intends to construct tolled express lanes on a portion of Interstate 15 (I-15") within Riverside County to improve existing and future traffic operations and mainline travel times, expand travel choice, increase travel time reliability, and expand the tolled express lane network ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, Caltrans served as lead agency for the environmental review, analysis, and approval of the Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.) ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, Caltrans prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study ("MND") for the Project for public comment; and WHEREAS, Caltrans adopted the MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2015071074), adopted an Environmental Commitments Record ("Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program"), and approved the Project on May 4, 2016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines section 15096, the Commission has limited obligations as a CEQA responsible agency with regard to the Project; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. Compliance with the Environmental Quality Act. In the Commission's limited role as a responsible agency under CEQA, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all supporting documentation, copies of which are on file at the Commission's office and are incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. Based on this review, the Commission finds, as to those potential environmental impacts within the Commission's powers and authorities as responsible agency, that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of those potential impacts, that the Project's environmental impacts, including but not 3 limited to traffic, air resources, biology, and greenhouse gas emissions, are less than significant or can be mitigated to less than significant levels, and that these findings reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission. Section 2. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In its limited role as a responsible agency under CEQA, the Commission finds that the MND contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Commission further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Commission further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project, including but not limited to traffic, air resources, biology, and greenhouse gas emissions, are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that any comments received regarding the Project have been examined and determined to not modify the conclusions of the MND or the Commission. The Commission finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The Commission further finds that no additional feasible mitigation measures within the Commission's authority are necessary to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project to less than significant levels. Section 3. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project and approved by Caltrans, a copy of which is included herewith as Exhibit A and is also on file at the Commission's office, and is incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. Section 4. Approval of the Project. As required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15096 and its role as responsible agency under CEQA, the Commission hereby approves the Project. Section 5. Notice of Determination. The Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk's Office within five (5) working days of adoption of this Resolution. Section 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution and the above findings have been based are located at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92501. 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission this 13th day of July, 2016. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Scott Matas, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 5 Exhibit A (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) 6 Appendix D Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project i 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PRF-1: Trail Detours. During construction, detours will be provided at River Trails Park. Continuous and safe access to other portions of the park and to the opposite sides of the Santa Ana River bridge will be maintained during construction activities. A meeting will be held with the City of Norco regarding the project's temporary impacts to River Trails Park before construction begins. (NEPA/minimization measure) 2-41 Community Impact Assessment (CIA), July 2015 RE/Contractor During construction Implement measure AQ-1 below. 2-271 Air Quality Report (AQR), June 2015 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Standard Specification 14- 9.02 Implement measure N0I-1 below. 2-413 Noise Study Report (NSR), July 2015 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Implement measure NOI-2 below. 2-414 NSR RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COHESION C-1: Prior to construction, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared that will: a) Identify the locations of potential temporary detours, if needed. b) Help to ensure that local access to residences and businesses, as well as bus and emergency service vehicle access, is available during construction of the proposed project. c) Specify timeframes for temporary detours, if needed. d) Specify the process for notifying residents, businesses, emergency services, and the traveling public of the construction period and any required detours.(NEPA/minimization measure) 2-67 CIA Design/Build Contractor Final Design Standard Specification 12- 4.01 Implement measure AQ-1 below. 2-271 Air Quality Report (AQR), June 2015 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Standard Specification 14- 9.02 Implement measure N0I-1 below. 2-413 Noise Study Report (NSR), July 2015 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Implement measure NOI-2 below. 2-414 NSR RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-1 7 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EJ-1: A program will be implemented for the 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes to allow customers to obtain a toll tag and pay toll tag fees in several ways. It is anticipated that this program will be similar to the Orange County Transportation Authority's SR-91 Express Lanes Program. 2-93 IS/EA RCTC Prior to opening year and during operation UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICES11 Implement measure C-1 above. 2-67 CIA RE/Contractor During construction TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Implement measure PRF-1 above. 2-41 CIA RE/Contractor During construction Implement measure C-1 above. 2-67 CIA Design/Build Contractor Final Design Standard Specification 12- 4.01 VISUAL/AESTHETICS VIS-1: Construction Lighting. To minimize light spill due to temporary construction activities, light fixtures will be designed to direct light downward to reduce impacts on area residents. All related lighting will meet the appropriate city lighting standards as listed in the Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and County of Riverside General Plan and Zoning requirements. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-171 Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), May 2015 Design Final Design VIS-2: Noise Barriers. The design of all noise barriers will comply with Caltrans standards for noise attenuation, safety requirements, and other pertinent standards. The design of noise barriers requires compliance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Standards, and aesthetic treatments will be reviewed and approved by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. Noise barriers near right of way boundaries will be designed so that access control fencing will not be needed. "Dead" spaces between walls and fences will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-171 VIA Design/Landscape Architecture Final Design VIS-3: Architectural Surface Treatment and Detailing. Architectural features, textures, color, and transparency will be used to mitigate the appearance of noise barrier surfaces. Walls will incorporate architectural features such as 1) pilasters and caps to provide shadow lines that will provide relief from monolithic appearance and 2) interesting block patterns to reduce their apparent scale and reduce the potential for graffiti. Noise barriers will be designed to be visually compatible with the surrounding community character and consistent with the SR-91 CIP Project Aesthetics and Landscape Master Plan (PALM), where appropriate. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-172 VIA Design/Landscape Architecture Final Design Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-2 8 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO VIS-4: Structure Aesthetics. Aesthetic treatment for bridge barriers, abutments, and other structure elements will be consistent with the SR-91 CIP PALM. Where bridge structures are widened to the inside, roadway undercrossing slope paving will be constructed as "in -kind" to be consistent with the existing slope treatment. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-172 VIA Design/Landscape Architecture Final Design VIS-5: Landscaping. The design of landscaping will comply with Caltrans standards for aesthetic treatments and will be reviewed by the Caltrans District Landscape Architect. Landscape types will be consistent with the SR- 91 CIP PALM. a) Construction. Upon completion of the project, landscaping will be replaced "in kind" for any vegetation removed for the purposes of project construction. b) Corridor Landscaping. In general, highway landscaping will be consistent with the character of adjacent community landscaping. In communities that are characterized by ornamental landscaping, drought -resistant plants will be consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California guidelines, which promote the use of xeric (adapted to arid conditions) landscaping techniques. The irrigation design and implementation practices will also conform to the water conservation measures established in Assembly Bill 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (September 9, 2009). The plant materials will also be durable relative to the air quality of the project area. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-172 VIA Design/Landscape Architecture Final Design VIS-6: Lighting, Signage, and Miscellaneous Highway Hardware. Signage, lighting, and miscellaneous highway feature mitigation designs will be detailed in the final engineering plans. Lighting and signage pedestals on structures will occur at pilasters or be incorporated in other architectural features. Highway lighting and signage will conform to Caltrans design guidelines. Signage with changeable elements or self -illuminated features such as changeable message signs will be excluded from viewsheds containing scenic resources to the greatest extent possible. Bridge lighting will be extended from the existing lighting along the abutment walls (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-172 VIA Design/Landscape Architecture Final Design Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-3 9 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earth- moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-177 Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), October 2014 Qualified Archaeologist, RE, and Contractor All ground disturbing activities, construction Standard Specification 14-2.03A Contact The District Environmental Branch Chief (DEBC), Gabrielle Duff ([909]) 383-6933) or District Native American Coordinator (DNAC), Gary Jones ([909] 383-7505) if any cultural elements or human remains are discovered. An additional survey will be required if the project changes to include areas not previously surveyed for cultural resources. Use on all "large operations" with a disturbed soil area of 50 acres or more or where the contractor will move 5,000 cubic yards or more of soil in a year. Use on all "large operations" for projects in the Coachella/Searless Valley Planning Area Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-4 10 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO CR-2: If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the county coroner contacted. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will then notify the Most Likely Descendent. At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact the Caltrans District 8 Environmental Branch so that they may work with the Most Likely Descendent on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-177 HPSR and ASR RE and Contractor All ground disturbing activities, construction Contact The District Environmental Branch Chief (DEBC), Gabrielle Duff ([909]) 383-6933) or District Native American Coordinator (DNAC), Gary Jones ([909] 383-7505) if any cultural elements or human remains are discovered. An additional survey will be required if the project changes to include areas not previously surveyed for cultural resources. CR-3: If project plans change following the approval of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), dated October 2014, or if the Undertaking will otherwise not be implemented as originally proposed, including, but not limited to changes in project scope or limits, or work outside the approved Area of Potential Effects (APE) approved October 7, 2014, Caltrans will re -open NHPA Section 106 and CEQA consultation pertaining to Historical Resources in order to determine whether the findings made in the HPSR remain valid. If changes are made to the project as described above, Caltrans PQS will determine the applicability of this measure, and additional studies may be required. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-177 IS/MND Caltrans PQS, RCTC Following approval of the Final ED if at any time project plans change. WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF _ WR-1: Comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Order No. 2009 0009 DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010- 0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012 0006 DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), and any subsequent permit, as they relate to construction activities for the project. This shall include submission of the permit registration documents, including a Notice Of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and signed certification statement to SWRCB at least 14 days prior to the start of construction activity. The SWPPP shall 1) meet the requirements of the Construction General Permit and identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; 2-204 Water Quality Assessment Report, April 2015 RE and Design/Build Contractor Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-5 11 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO 2) identify non -storm water discharges; and 3) identify, implement, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. The BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall be implemented during the project construction. A Notice of Termination shall be submitted to SWRCB upon completion of construction and the stabilization of the site. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) WR-2: Comply with the provisions of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001, as they relate to discharge of non -storm water dewatering wastes for the project. This shall include submitting to the Santa Ana RWQCB an NOI at least 60 days prior to the start of construction, and notification of discharge at least five days prior to any planned discharges. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-204 Water Quality Assessment Report RE and Design/Build Contractor Construction WR-3: Comply with the provisions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Santa Ana RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from the USACE, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW for impacts on jurisdictional areas. These regulatory permits shall be obtained prior to impacts within identified jurisdictional areas. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-204 Water Quality Assessment Report RCTC and Design/Build Contractor Construction/ Final Design WR-4: Comply with the provisions of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), effective July 1, 2013 (known as the Caltrans MS4 permit). Project -specific BMPs and any applicable hydromodification features shall be incorporated into final design. The BMPs shall be properly designed and maintained to target pollutants of concern and reduce runoff from the project site. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-204 Water Quality Assessment Report Design Construction/ Final Design PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES _ PALEO-1: Grading, excavation, and other surface and subsurface excavation in defined proposed project have the potential to affect nonrenewable paleontological resources. A Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) shall be prepared during final project design by a qualified paleontologist. The PMP will detail all the measures to be implemented in the event of paleontological discoveries. The PMP shall include, at a minimum, the following elements. a) Required 1-hour preconstruction paleontological awareness training for earthmoving personnel, including documentation of training, such as sign -in sheets, and hardhat stickers, to establish communications protocols between construction personnel and the principal paleontologist. b) There will be a signed repository agreement with an appropriate 2-224 Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report, September 2014 RE and Contractor During all ground disturbing activities and construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-6 12 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO repository that meets Caltrans requirements and is approved by Caltrans. c) Monitoring, by a principal paleontologist, of Pleistocene older alluvium during excavation. d) Field and laboratory methods that meet the curation requirements of the appropriate repository will be implemented for monitoring, reporting, collection, and curation of collected specimens. Curation requirements are available for public review at the appropriate repository. e) All elements of the PMP will follow the PMP Format published in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (Caltrans 2003). f) A Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR) discussing findings and analysis will be prepared by a principal paleontologist upon completion of project earthmoving. The report will be included in the environmental project file and also submitted to the curation facility. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS HW-1: A Lead Compliance Plan will be prepared by the contractor to ensure worker safety. During construction, unknown hazardous materials may be encountered, or materials could be accidently spilled. Best Management Practices will be required to minimize or avoid these risks 2-229 Initial Site Assessment (ISA), December 2014 RCTC and Design/Build Contractor Prior to Demolition, Grading, During Grading/Construction HW-2: A Soil Management Plan will be developed to establish the notification, monitoring, profiling, confirmation sampling, and laboratory analysis of impacted soil for proper disposal of contaminated materials. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-229 ISA RCTC and Design/Build Contractor Prior to Demolition, Grading, During Grading/Construction HW-3: Prior to construction, limited soil sampling will be conducted during the final design phase in the area of staining observed in the median between Limonite Avenue and 68th Street. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-229 ISA RCTC and Design/Build Contractor Prior to Construction HW-4: Abatement of identified asbestos containing materials and lead based paint will be conducted prior to the renovation of the bridge structures. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-229 ISA RCTC and Design/Build Contractor Prior to Demolition, Grading, During Grading/Construction HW-5: During construction, sampling and analysis of yellow striping will be performed in accordance with Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (Caltrans 2006). (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-229 ISA RCTC and Design/Build Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-7 13 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO AIR QUALITY AQ-1: Implementation of Construction Measures to Reduce Fugitive Dust Emissions. Consistent with all applicable requirements, a fully executed Large Operation Notification Form will be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Even though the project's emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for construction, as required by the SCAQMD's Fugitive Dust Rule 403, the project proponent must implement the applicable PM10- and PM2.5-reducing construction practices shown in Table 2-53 during construction of the proposed project. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-271 Air Quality Report (AQR), June 2015 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Standard Specification 14- 9.02 AQ-2: All measures, pertinent to each source of PM10emissions which the project is responsible for, will be implemented as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403. 2-271 Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment RCTC and Design -Build Contractor During Grading/Construction AQ-3: All non -road construction equipment shall meet or exceed equivalent emissions performance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 standards. 2-271 Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment RCTC and Design -Build Contractor During Grading/Construction AQ-4: All on -road and off -road equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) commercial vehicle idle regulations. 2-271 Air Quality Report (AQR), June 2015 RCTC and Design -Build Contractor During Grading/Construction AQ-5: The solicitation for construction bids shall include language requiring the use of energy and fuel -efficient fleets and zero -emission technologies for vehicles where possible. 2-271 Initial Study Environmental Assessment RCTC Prior to solicitation for construction bids AQ-6: Prior to construction, a training for contractors and their employees shall be developed and presented regarding air quality impacts from construction activities and potential health risks to nearby receptors, along with ways to reduce emissions. 2-271 Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment RCTC and Design -Build Contractor Prior to ground disturbance and during construction for new construction personnel NOISE N0I-1: Sound control shall conform to the provisions in Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control," of Caltrans' 2010 Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. The contractor shall not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. For areas of the project located within or adjacent to City of Corona limits, City of Corona Municipal Code Section 17.84040 (D)(2) shall also apply during construction (City of Corona 1999): Construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and federal holidays. Construction noise is defined as noise which is disturbing, excessive or offensive and constitutes a nuisance involving discomfort or annoyance to persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area, which is generated by the use of any tools, machinery or equipment 2-413 Noise Study Report (NSR), July 2015 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Standard Special Provision 14-8.02 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-8 14 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO used in connection with construction operations. For areas of the project located within or adjacent to City of Norco limits, City of Norco Municipal Code Section 9.07.020 shall also apply during construction (City of Norco 2014): Construction -related single events or continuous events subject to a permit issued by the City of Norco are exempt from the City's municipal code. For areas of the project located within or adjacent to City of Eastvale limits, City of Eastvale Municipal Code Sec. 110.01.020 shall also apply during construction (City of Eastvale 2012): Any construction within the city located within one-fourth of a mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the city building official or city engineer. For areas of the project located within or adjacent to City of Jurupa Valley or County of Riverside limits, The County of Riverside Municipal Code Sec. 9.52.070 shall also apply during construction (County of Riverside 2012): Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Section 9.52.040 or 9.52.060 of this chapter and may be characterized as construction -related, single -event or continuous -events exceptions. Construction -Related Exceptions. An application for a construction -related exception shall be made to and considered by the director of building and safety on forms provided by the building and safety department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No public hearing is required. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) NOI-2: In conjunction with adhering to measure N0I-1 (above), if necessary in order to ensure implementation of measure N0I-1, the contractor may be required to implement additional noise reducing measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-414 NSR RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-9 15 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO NATURAL COMMUNITIES B10-1: Clearing of natural vegetation (including sage scrub) will be performed outside of the active breeding season for birds, as defined in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (March 1 through June 30) (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3), except for Riversidian sage scrub (including disturbed) judged to be potentially suitable habitat for (and/or occupied by) California Gnatcatcher and located within Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan criteria areas and Public/Quasi-Public lands (stations 1784+00 through 1800+00). For these areas, the habitat removal restriction is extended from June 30 to August 15. In addition, for riparian-riverine vegetation occupied by LBV (Stations 2104 through 2106 [east side], Stations 2437 through 2455 [both sides], and Stations 2455 through 2476 [east side]), vegetation removal cannot occur through September 15. Natural, Sage Scrub, and Riparian Vegetation Clearing Restrictions 2-476 Natural Environment Study (NES), December 2014 RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Clearing Restriction Natural Vegetation With Clearing Restriction March 1— June 30 Coast Live Oak Woodland, Coast and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Mule Fat Scrub, Southern Cottonwood -Willow Riparian Forest, Nonnative Grassland (including remnant), Open Water, Riversidian Sage Scrub (including disturbed and remnant), and Southern Willow Scrub (including disturbed). March 1— August 15 Riversidian Sage Scrub, (including disturbed and remnant) where it occurs within criteria cell areas, Regional Conservation Authority Conserved Lands, and Public/Quasi- Public Conserved Lands. April 1— September 15 Coast and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Mule Fat Scrub, Southern Cottonwood -Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Willow Scrub (including disturbed). If clearing of vegetation needs to occur, a preconstruction nesting bird survey will need to be performed (refer to measure B10-31 for the nesting bird survey requirements). (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-10 16 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO B10-2: Active construction areas will be watered regularly to control dust and thus minimize impacts on adjacent vegetation (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume I, Section 7.5.3). (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-477 NES RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction B10-3: When work is conducted during the fire season (as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department) adjacent to Riversidian Sage Scrub, appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) will be available on the project site during all phases of project construction to help minimize the chance of human -caused wildfires. Shields, protective mats, and/or other fire preventative methods will be used during grinding, welding, and other spark -inducing activities. Personnel trained in fire hazards, preventative actions, and responses to fires will advise contractors regarding fire risk from all construction -related activities (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume I, Section 7.5.3). The Riversidian sage scrub that this measure applies to is located at Stations 1784 through 1807+50 and 1891 through 1907+50. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-477 NES RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction B10-4: A qualified biologist will conduct a training session for project and construction personnel (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3) prior to vegetation removal. The training will include a description of the species of concern and their habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the acts and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the acts, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the proposed project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). All sensitive areas will be fenced as presented in measure B10-6. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-477 NES Qualified Biologist Monitor, RE and Contractor Training to be done prior to demolition/construction Fencing to be installed prior to Grading/Construction B10-5: The qualified biologist will monitor construction activities for the duration of the proposed project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed and to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume I, Section 7.5.3). Special attention will be provided to ensure that the ESA fencing required in measure B10-6 is maintained daily. Additionally, ongoing monitoring and reporting will occur for the duration of the construction activity to ensure implementation of BMPs. This will be done in concert with B10-13, which includes the fencing of sensitive areas. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-478 NES Qualified Biologist Monitor, RE, and Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-11 17 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO B10-6: Construction personnel will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) will be the minimal area necessary to complete the proposed project and will be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits adjacent to sensitive resource areas will be demarcated using environmental sensitive area (ESA) fencing (e.g., orange snow screen). The ESA fencing will be reviewed at least weekly by the biological monitor (as indicated in measure B10-5) until the completion of all construction activities. For the ESA fencing installed in Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Core A (Santa Ana River), the fencing must exclude reptiles and amphibians (to the greatest extent feasible) from entering the limits of disturbance. Employees will be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas (MSHCP Volume!, Appendix C). Access to sites will be from pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible (MSHCP Volume!, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume!, Appendix C). The ESA fencing will be applied at the following station locations: Northbound: Station 1783; Station 1787+25 to 1788+25; Station 1790+40 to 1791+30; Station 1792+00 to 1802+00; Station 1806+60 to 1807+60; Station 1813+80 to 1814+20; Station 1830+80 to 1831+00; Station 1839+60 to 1840+00; Station 1846+00 to 1847+00; Station 1870+80 to 1871+20 (off ramp); Station 1876+80 to 1879+20 (off ramp); Station 1883+00 to 1885+00 (on ramp); Station 1886+00 to 1888+40 (on ramp); Station 1991+00 to 1992+00; Station 1906+00 to 1914+20; Station 1929+50 to 1931+50; Station 1936+00 to 1936+40 (off ramp); Station 1940+00 to 1950+00 (on and off ramp); Station 1960+1966+00; Station 1970+00 to 1970+40; Station 1976+00 to 1977+00; Station 2001+00 to 2008+00; Station 2013+00 to 2015+00; Station 2036+80 to 3037+20 (off ramp); Station 2041+00 to 2045+20; Station 2054+80 to 2062+50; Station 2101+00 to 2104+50; Station 2179+50 to 2190+00 (SR-91 east bound connector ramp); Station 2192+40 to 2193+00; Station 2204+80 to 2208+50 (east side of Cresta Road); Station 2240+80 to 2241+20 (south side of Corona Circle); Station 2292+10 to 2293+10; Station 2437+40 to 2508+00; Station 2630+80 to 2714+80; Station 2715+60 to 2725+00; 2727+00 to 2731+50; Station 2745 to the segment of 1-15, north of the project limits to just above Jurupa Avenue in the City of Ontario within San Bernardino County (station numbering not available for this segment). Southbound: Station 1783+00 to 1790+25; Station 1793+40 to 1799+50; Station 1803+00 to 1828+00; Station 1888+00 to 1889+00; Station 1890+00 to 1900+80; Station 1908+00 to 1909+10; Station 1913+20 to 1923+00; Station 1929+00 to 1931+80; Station 1935+80 to 1936+20; Station 1964+00 to 1965+00; Station 2024+20 to 2025+10; Station 2055+60 to 2060+60; Station 2101+00 to 2102+10; Station 2105+20 to 2115+00; Station 2117+40 to 2129+80 (on ramp); Station 2140+80 to 2156+40; Station 2241+00 to 2-478 NES Qualified Biologist Monitor, RE, and Contractor ESA fencing to be installed prior to construction/demolition. Training to be done prior to demolition/construction. Implement during Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-12 18 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO 2241+80 (north side of Corona Circle); Station 2289+00 to 2290+60; Station 2382+00 to 2401+20; Station 2414+60 to 2422+80; Station 2423+20 to 2426+00; 2434+60 to 2455+80; Station 2508+80 to 2509+20; Station 2510+60 to 2546+80; Station 2547+80 to 2574+00; Station 2610+80 to 2636+00; Station 2644+80 to 2706+00; Station 2706+60 to 2716+80; Station 2718+80 to 2734+10; Station 2746+40 to the segment of 1-15, north of the project limits to just above Jurupa Avenue in the City of Ontario within San Bernardino County (station numbering not available for this segment). (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) BI0-7: A qualified biologist will ensure that exotic and invasive plant species (Cal-IPC 2006, 2007) will be removed during construction and will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume!, Section 7.5.3). The biological monitor will monitor the removal of exotic plants on the construction site. Prior to any removal, the contractor will provide to the biological monitor a Weed Abatement Plan, which will include (1) the approach taken to manage the removed, cut vegetation such that sprouting or regrowth does not occur and (2) the location and timing of disposal. This will be provided in writing. The prime contractor and the biologist will be ultimately responsible for ensuring this measure is executed properly. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-479 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist During Grading/Construction BI0-8: All construction vehicles prior to entering the project site will be washed (cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds) at the construction yard to ensure no seeds are clinging to the vehicle prior to arriving at the project area. The construction yard must be outside the SAR floodplain/canyon and at least 300 feet from ESA fencing. The biological monitor will be responsible for inspecting all newly arriving washed construction vehicles and ensuring that any construction vehicles leaving the SAR project area are properly washed. Any unwashed or inadequately washed construction vehicles deemed as such by the biological monitor will return to the construction yard for washing. The prime contractor has full responsibility for ensuring this measure is followed. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-479 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist During Grading/Construction BI0-9: Vegetation will be covered (e.g., with tarps) while being carried on trucks, and vegetation materials removed from the site will be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Disposal of any vegetation (native or nonnative) or materials removed from the project site must be transported to a legal landfill or recycling entity. No dumping of vegetation is to occur in the project area including any portion of the SAR floodplain/canyon. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-479 NES RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-13 19 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO B10-10: Post -construction, any disturbed areas remaining as bare ground will be hydro -seeded with a Caltrans-approved seed mix in accordance with agency -approved restoration plans and regulatory permits. In addition, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) will be implemented, which will describe specific measures and requirements for riparian-riverine habitat restoration. The final HMMP will be provided to the RCA. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-479 NES RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction B10-11: The permittee (in this case, Caltrans and Riverside County Transportation Commission) will have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects for compliance with project approval conditions, including best management practices (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume I, Appendix C) (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-480 NES RCTC, RE, Contractor During Grading/Construction B10-12: Plans for water pollution and erosion control will be prepared. The plans will describe sediment and hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and equipment management practices, and use of plant material for erosion control. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the County of Riverside and Caltrans prior to construction (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume I, Section 7.5.3). The following measures will be provided: a) Water pollution and erosion control plans will be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C) and will ensure that no fluids or sediment from construction will enter into the environmentally sensitive area fenced areas. Refer to measure B10-6 for locations. b) New surface flows will be treated prior to reaching waterways. c) Sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented until such time soils are determined to be successfully stabilized (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3). d) No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses or areas demarcated with ESA fencing, as listed in measure B10-6 above. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). e) Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in riparian vegetation areas should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian -associated species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7 (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). Breeding season as defined by the MSHCP is March 1 through June 30. f) If streamflows must be diverted, the diversions will be conducted using 2-480 NES RCTC, RE, Contractor Prepare plans prior to construction and implement during grading/construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-14 20 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment -trapping materials will be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected will be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care will be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). Short-term diversions will consider effects on wildlife (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3). All water diversions within the SAR will be monitored by a qualified biologist to avoid impacts on Santa Ana sucker, as discussed in BI0-24. g) Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be located on nonsensitive upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). These designated areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions will be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project - related spills of hazardous materials will be reported to appropriate entities including, but not limited to, the applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and the RWQCB, will be cleaned up immediately, and contaminated soils will be removed to approved disposal areas (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). h) All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances will occur only in designated areas within the proposed grading limits of the project site. These designated areas will be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain runoff (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3). (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) BI0-13: The limits of disturbance, including the upstream, downstream, and lateral extents on either side of any stream adjacent to the project impact footprint, will be clearly defined (and marked in the field), and ESA fence will be shown on plans in advance of any work being performed that could affect resource(s) being protected by the ESA fence. Biological monitoring personnel will review the limits of disturbance prior to initiation of construction activities (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). The upstream and downstream limits of project disturbance plus the lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream will be clearly defined and marked in the field, including ESA fencing installed during construction to ensure avoidance of jurisdictional areas and riparian habitat(refer to measure BI0-6 for location). Monitoring personnel will review the limits of disturbance prior to initiation of construction activities. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-481 NES RE and Contractor Prior to Ground Disturbance (Install fencing)/During construction (maintain fencing) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-15 21 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO BI0-14: During construction, the placement of equipment within a stream or on adjacent banks or adjacent upland habitats occupied by Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) covered species that are outside of the project footprint will be avoided to the greatest extent feasible (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). There will be no work beyond the ESA fencing even when the TCE extends beyond the ESA fencing. The ESA fencing and TCEs will be depicted on the construction plans used in the field by the construction crew and biological monitor. Where there is no ESA fencing, no work can occur beyond the TCE. If any ground disturbance needs to occur beyond the ESA or TCE limits at a location, then there must be a pullback of impact at another location, such that the amount and type of impact does not exceed what was presented in the project DBESP. A biological monitor shall review the new area proposed for impact and the area proposed for pullback from impact. Both areas will be mapped and quantified using a sub -meter accurate GPS with a description of habitat types between the two areas and why the areas are comparable in quality. Photographs will be taken to justify the valuation and conclusions of habitat equivalency. A Memorandum detailing the "equivalency" review will be provided to the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW for review and concurrence prior to any ground disturbance beyond the mapped ESA and TCE limits. Once approved by the wildlife agencies, the ESA fencing or TCE limits will be revised in the field with oversight by the biological monitor. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) Directly prior to ground disturbance, the biological monitor will, to the extent feasible, ensure no direct mortality to MSHCP-covered species occurs. This may involve flushing animals from the direct impact area or, when feasible, capturing individuals and releasing them well beyond the TCE. Any capture of native animals that require permits or permissions will be conducted by a biologist with the necessary permit approvals. If there is a species present that needs to be relocated and requires permission from the wildlife agencies beyond permits and approvals already provided to the project or approved by the biologist's permits/Memorandum of Understanding/Collecting Permit, the biological monitor will coordinate with the wildlife agencies to receive approval prior to capturing the species. 2-481 NES RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction BI0-15: A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report that provides analysis of direct and indirect impacts, avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation, along with the functions and values of the resources being affected as related to Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan covered species, was approved by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW for review on April 14, 2016. All measures identified in the final DBESP shall be implemented as part of the project. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-482 NES RCTC After approval of the NES Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-16 22 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO B10-16: Compensation of permanent impacts on 2.62 acres of riparian- riverine resources (including permanent shading) would occur at a 3:1 ratio for riparian resources and a 1:1 ratio for ephemeral drainages. The compensation, 6.33 acres for 2.11 acres of riparian resources and 0.51 acre for 0.51 acre of ephemeral resources, can be a combination of enhancement, restoration, and/or creation (rehabilitation) as long as there is no net loss of riparian-riverine resources. The project will mitigate for impacts on 0.68 acre of CDFW jurisdictional waters of the State, 2.82 acres of RWQCB jurisdictional waters of the state, 0.17 acre of federal jurisdictional non - wetlands, and 0.14 acre of federal jurisdictional wetlands at a minimum 1:1 ratio. This means that, at the very least, the amount of riparian-riverine resources removed and the amount being created (rehabilitated) must be at a 1:1 ratio. The remaining compensation can occur as enhancement and restoration. Compensatory mitigation will be coordinated with Clean Water Act (CWA) 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement acquisition to ensure efficiencies with the mitigation effort. Purchase of mitigation bank credits through an approved in -lieu fee program and/or creation of riparian-riverine resources, including federal and state jurisdictional water resources within the Santa Ana River watershed, will be researched as an option; however, compensation must occur within the SAR and/or directly adjacent. The compensation required under this measure should incorporate the creation of occupied least Bell's vireo (LBV) habitat for time and monetary efficiencies (refer to measure B10-26 for more details on LBV compensatory mitigation). 2-482 NES RCTC After approval of the ED, Prior to Construction B10-17: The temporary impacts on 14.90 acres of riparian-riverine resources are to be replaced through restoration at their current locations at a 1:1 ratio, except for the 1.70 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest; it will be restored at its current location at a 1:1 ratio, and off -site compensation will occur at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 1.70 acres x 2 equals 3.40 acres) Details of this compensation have been provided in the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report (measure B10-15). To reduce temporal loss of temporary impacts on riparian vegetation at the SAR, if feasible, riparian vegetation will be removed from the temporary impact footprint through cutting, whereby vegetation will be cut to ground level, thus leaving the root system. All riparian-riverine areas will be revegetated with similar riparian vegetation as was present prior to impacts or will be vegetated with appropriate native vegetation if it was not present prior to construction. A detailed HMMP will be required with the final HMMP provided to the RCA. Monitoring will occur for no less than five years for riparian vegetated impact areas, once seeding and planting is completed. Because the federally and state -listed as endangered least Bell's vireo occupies the riparian-riverine resources at the Santa Ana River area proposed for impact, the 2-482 NES RCTC After approval of the ED, Prior to Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-17 23 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO compensation for both riparian-riverine resources and least Bell's vireo will be integrated. The mitigation ratios presented in this measure are required at a minimum to reduce permanent and temporary impacts on riparian-riverine resources to a level of less than significant under CEQA and not adverse under NEPA. Final mitigation ratios for impacts triggering CWA 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 will be determined through consultation with USACE, RWQCB, USFWS, and CDFW. (CEQA/NEPA, mitigation measure) BI0-18: Night lighting will be directed away from natural lands within potential Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation areas in order to support potential linkage and core functions during construction. This is intended to protect species within potential MSHCP conservation areas from direct night lighting during construction, if activities occur at night. This would apply for the following areas: lands on the east side of 1-15 from Lawson Road north for 4,000 feet, and lands on the east and west of 1-15 from just south of the Santa Ana River north for 4,000 feet (i.e., east of Stations 1783+00 to 1820+00, west of Stations 2434+80 to 2454+10, and east of Stations 2439+75 to 2476+00). The MSHCP requires that shielding be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in MSHCP conservation areas is not increased (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.4). A biological monitor will monitor compliance in the SAR project area throughout the project and will include this compliance monitoring as a regular item in the weekly SAR monitoring reports to Caltrans, RCTC, CDFW, and USFWS. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-483 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist During Grading/Construction BI0-19: To avoid or minimize potential terrestrial wildlife mortality on 1-15, chain link fence repairs and/or improvements will be made so that animals are dissuaded from moving onto the facility. Installation and/or improvements to fencing will be directed and overseen by a qualified biologist familiar with wildlife animal movement measures: a) Santa Ana River bridge — Adjust and install chain link fencing to funnel wildlife underneath this bridge so that animals do not move onto the I- 15 facility. This includes installation of fencing between the two bridge spans. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-483 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist Prior to Ground Disturbance (Install fencing)/During construction (maintain fencing) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-18 24 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO BI0-20: To maintain functionality of the Santa Ana River as a wildlife undercrossing, a minimum Openness Index (formula = width [in meters] x height [in meters] / length [in meters]) of 0.6 meter (having a minimum height of 10 to 20 feet) underneath the bridges at the I- 15 crossing will be maintained at all times during construction. The undersides of the existing bridges are approximately 22 feet above the ground, and the distance between the outside edges of the two bridges is approximately 160 feet. 2-490 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist Prior to Ground Disturbance (Install opening)/During construction (maintain opening) BI0-21: Between March 15 and September 15, all heavy equipment will install and maintain mufflers or other noise -reducing features when working adjacent to riparian vegetated areas. A biological monitor shall monitor and log sound levels at the edge of the limits of disturbance (LOD) within the riparian vegetation to ensure noise levels do not result in a disruption to nesting birds (typically at 60 decibels). If construction noise is negatively affecting nesting birds, work shall cease (unless authorized by the wildlife agencies) until adequate sound barriers can be constructed to reduce noise levels at the edge of the riparian corridor where intense noise/vibration- producing work is being conducted. It may be most effective to construct noise barriers well prior to March 15 to ensure construction delays do not occur. All sound barriers would need to be constructed within the LOD and should not interrupt wildlife movement within the SAR. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-483 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist During Grading/Construction that occurs between March 15 and September 15 BI0-22: Once the environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) fencing has been installed in Core A (Santa Ana River), a preconstruction reptile and amphibian survey will be conducted no more than two days prior to site grubbing and grading of lands in this area. The purpose of the survey is to locate any amphibians and reptiles within the limits of disturbance (LOD) and relocate these animals to beyond the LOD. If any coast horned lizards or orange - throated whiptails are caught and relocated, the release locations will be recorded as GPS coordinates, and the observations (including release locations) will be provided to the CNDDB and the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Biological Monitoring Program. If construction is to occur in stages, then the preconstruction survey would be scheduled to follow just prior to site grubbing and grading. No special permits are necessary beyond a CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit. This measure is not required at any other riparian-riverine resource areas because they are either not proposed for direct impact or potential habitat for reptiles and amphibians is not present. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-483 NES RCTC, RE, and Contractor Prior to Ground Disturbance (Install fencing)/During Construction (maintain fencing) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-19 25 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO B10-23: Public/Quasi-Public lands in Existing Core A permanently removed (0.12 acre) will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. This will be coordinated with riparian-riverine compensation and jurisdictional resources permitting. Prior to land acquisition or purchase of mitigation credits, an equivalency report will be provided that analyzes the existing biological resources being permanently removed to the biological resources supported by the lands proposed for acquisition. The resource values will need to be equivalent and reviewed by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW. Execution of this mitigation measure is provided under the compensatory mitigation needed for least Bell's vireo (B10-26) and riparian-riverine resources (B10-15, B10-16, B10-17) at the Santa Ana River. 2-490 NES RCTC After Approval of the ED, Prior to Construction B10-24: A qualified monitor will be present during all construction phase work occurring in or within surface waters that are themselves within 300 feet of the Santa Ana River. Temporary dewatering of the channel (e.g., for construction falsework) shall be for the minimum period, over the minimum area feasible, and performed in a manner to ensure no entrapment or escape of fishes into drying areas. The monitor will be qualified to move fish, particularly Santa Ana sucker, out of entrapped areas. In addition, a native fish protection plan will be prepared for impacts on the SAR. The plan will include a detailed diversion/dewatering plan and avoidance and minimization measures for all native fish with the potential to occur at this location, and the native fish protection plan will be reviewed and approved by the wildlife agencies. The fish protection plan will include (at a minimum): a) Design plans for dewatering/diversion (including equipment ingress and egress, sizing of dewatering/diversion, etc.). The plan will identify the type(s) of water diversion proposed and should clarify if the dewatering/diversion structure(s) will be anchored into the substrate (and, if so, how this will be accomplished). b) Location of dewatering/diversion (marked on a map), including locations of all proposed BMPs. c) Seasonal timing of dewatering/diversion and length of time dewatering/diversion is expected to occur. Dewatering/diversion will avoid the Santa Ana sucker and arroyo chub breeding season. Although variable, the breeding season is generally identified as March 1 through July 30, but may be as early as mid -January. Should dewatering/diversion activities take place during this time, monitor spawning and larval fish. d) Clarification on how dewatering/diversion will not pose a barrier to fish movement. e) Methodology proposed to prevent entrainment during dewatering/diversion. If screening/netting is proposed as part of this process, provide screen/netting sizing. Also describe the 2-484 NES RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-20 26 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO netting/screening process, including whether it will be temporary, used only during construction of the in -stream diversion, how long blocking nets be in place, and how long the nets are anticipated to function. f) Frequency of monitoring for entrainment, water quality, and BMPs. Elaborate on when monitoring will occur (e.g., only during construction). g) Specific qualifications for each type of monitor (e.g., qualifications of native fish monitor versus water quality monitor versus BMP monitor). At least one of the biological monitors will need to hold a valid 10(a)(1)(A) permit to handle Santa Ana sucker and include electroshocking on his/her permit. All other biological monitors who will participate in fishing activities will have prior experience identifying, at minimum, arroyo chub and Santa Ana sucker at various life stages, including the larval and pre - juvenile size classes. h) Description of how captured fish will be processed. It is recommended that when work on a reach of stream occurs, first place block nets both upstream and downstream of the proposed work area. Once these are installed, electroshock the fish to remove them from the work area. These fish can then be placed outside (up or downstream) of the work area immediately. If alternate methodology is proposed, please elaborate in detail. i) Full descriptions of all methodologies proposed to capture fish (e.g., electro-shocking, netting, seining, etc.). Information on electro-shocker settings and net sizing will be included in the plan, as well as minimum qualifications and amount of experience of the proposed monitors with each of the proposed methodologies. The monitor will have has prior experience using proposed methodologies, and at least one permitted sucker biologist will be present. j) Submission of weekly monitoring reports (reports will cover native fish, water quality, and BMP monitoring) to USFWS and CDFW to ensure compliance. k) Requirement for any nonnative fish captures to be euthanized on site and transported off site to an appropriate landfill. I) In addition to the removal of nonnative plant species (B10-7), removal of giant reed (Arundo donax) and tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) at the SAR to avoid repeat infestations. A methodology on how these plant removals will occur will be detailed and will include appropriate measures to ensure no impact on native wildlife. m) The spawning season for arroyo chub is March through August. n) The spawning season for Santa Ana sucker can be as early as mid - January through July. o) The dewatering/diversion avoidance window is mid -January through Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-21 27 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO August if either species is present. p) The avoidance construction window shall be stated in the Special Provisions and enforced by the Caltrans Resident Engineer. However, it is understood the native fish protection plan will be developed in coordination with the wildlife agencies by the design/build contractor. As such, the contractor will aware of the restrictions and needs of native fish. q) If the dewatering/diversion avoidance window is not practicable, the Native Fish Protection Plan will ensure that a qualified biologist (with the necessary permits and permissions to sample for eggs and larval fish) will sample the proposed dewatering/diversion areas for the presence of Santa Ana sucker and arroyo chub. If either species is present, no relocation can take place until larval fish are at least 20 millimeters in length and deemed old enough to relocate safely. Further details, as needed, will be provided in the draft Native Fish Protection Plan that will be approved by the wildlife agencies. If no larval fish are present of either species, a report will be provided to the wildlife agencies for approval and concurrence prior to any dewatering/diversion activities. r) Provide minimization measures for protection of sucker and chub larval fish. s) Provide minimization measures to reduce impacts to native fish from aquatic noise caused during construction and consider measures separately for the different age classes. Full details will be provided in the draft native fish protection plan. t) To mitigate for the temporary and permanent impacts on Santa Ana sucker and arroyo chub, RCTC will provide funding to the Riverside - Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) for the restoration of sucker/chub habitat at the RCRCD Altfillisch property just downstream of the Hamner Avenue Bridge. The restoration will place cabled bounders along the south side of the SAR in order to provide enhanced substrate refugia habitat that does not exist in the river. Native cuttings will be planted along the water line to improve both shading and anchoring of the rock. The work will include exotic removal and control, engineering of boulder clusters, monitoring in perpetuity, monthly fish occupation surveys for first two years, and annual reports. Full details of the off -site restoration will be approved by the wildlife agencies and the RCA and memorialized in writing and provided to the wildlife agencies and the RCA for their files. Temporarily affected areas will be returned to their original or better condition, including channel contours and substrate where impacts occur. However, no on -site restoration will occur. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-22 28 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO B10-26: The permanent removal of occupied least Bell's vireo (LBV)habitat (termed use areas in this document) will be compensated at a 3:1 ratio, with compensation occurring as creation and/or restoration. For all LBV occupied habitat temporarily removed during construction, restoration would occur at their original location at a 1:1 ratio. Creation and restoration potential is present at the Santa Ana River with all compensation within or directly adjacent to the SAR. Compensation for LBV impacts should be coordinated with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan riparian-riverine resources mitigation (measures B10-16 and B10-17) and water permitting for time and monetary efficiencies. (CEQA/NEPA, mitigation measure) 2-486 NES RCTC After Approval of the ED, Prior to Construction B10-27: To avoid attracting predators of the special -status species, the project site will be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s) (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume!, Appendix C). (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-486 NES RE, Contractor, and Biologist During Grading/Construction B10-29: A Bat Management Plan will be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur and to document the extent of bat habitation in the limits of disturbance (LOD) and directly adjacent lands. A coarse -scale bat habitat evaluation was performed. The following items will be included in the plan, at a minimum: a) A qualified bat biologist will perform a detailed field review of the potential bat habitat structures. Potential bat structures are located at the following 1-15 overcrossings/undercrossings: Weirick Road/Dos Lagos Drive (Station 1883), a channel (Station 1833+50), a creek (Station 1930+10), East Ontario Avenue (Station 2043+50), El Cerrito Road (Station 1996+50), Old Temescal Road (Station 2080+00), Magnolia Avenue (Station 2130+00), Temecal Wash channel (Station 2157+50), East 6th Street (Station 2162+40), railroad/channel (Station 2180+00), I- 15/SR-91 interchange bridges (approximately Station 2190+00), East Parkridge Avenue (Station 2208), Corona Avenue (Station 2243+00), Hidden Valley Parkway (Station 2263), Second Street (Station 2304), Detroit Street (Station 2423), Santa Ana River (Station 2450+00), 68th Street (Station 2508+50), Limonite Avenue (Station 2547), Bellgrave Avenue (Station 2605+20), Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road (Station 2645+20), Riverside Drive (Station 2705+80), I-15/SR-60 interchange bridges (Station 2717+50), East Mission Avenue (Station 2743), and Philadelphia Avenue (Station 2760). The field review will determine the level of survey needed to assess presence/absence of bats at each structure and will be performed in late spring/summer at least one year prior (preferably two years prior) to construction for possible occupation and resulting avoidance. 2-487 NES RCTC Prior to Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-23 29 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO b) For structures confirmed to be potentially suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys will be performed to determine whether a structure supports a nursery or roost and by which species. The presence of Townsend's big -eared bat will be determined through the surveys, which may include acoustic surveys if possible. This species can be difficult to detect. This survey work will occur in late- spring/summer at least one year, and preferably two years, prior to construction and potentially again in the following fall, depending on the results of the summer work. This would be determined by the bat biologist. c) For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details, both in text and graphically, of where exclusion devices will need to be placed, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. d) Monitoring activities and schedule will be included, including frequency of monitoring, which structures would need to be monitored, and reporting requirements. e) Details on placement of man-made roosting habitat panels, including design, placement location, and timing of placement, will be included. These panels must be placed at least nine months prior to the exclusion of the bats. f) The draft plan will be reviewed and approved by CDFW. g) The final bat management plan will be completed prior to Notice to Proceed 2 (NTP 2) and will be included in the Environmental Management Plan. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) BI0-31: Nesting Bird Management Plan — Due to the complexity of the project at the Santa Ana River as well as the many bridges and mature trees along the Caltrans right-of-way, a nesting bird management plan will be drafted to provide a comprehensive approach to handling nesting birds well prior to the commencement of construction. The measures provided below may be revised as needed by the wildlife agencies during approval of the nesting bird management plan. The plan will include, at a minimum, the following items: a) A qualified biologist will perform a detailed field review in a late spring/summer prior to construction) and document the location of LBV, raptor, and/or corvid nests along with sign of colonial nesting birds within the limits of disturbance and adjacent lands. This field review is to only provide the range of issues and provide a snapshot in time as to what the types and kinds of nesting bird issues need (at the very least) to be addressed in the nesting bird management plan. The nesting bird management plan will address the seasonal windows and survey needs 2-488 NES RCTC and Contractor After Approval of the ED, Prior to construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-24 30 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Environmental Compliance Remarks YES NO as well as noise abatement measures that will occur just prior to construction. Known and potential colonial nesting bird structures are detailed in measure BI0-29 above. The colonial nesting bird review should be performed in conjunction with measure BI0-29. b) Results of the field review will be used to draft approaches and survey methodologies for dealing with potential nesting species. The plan will include needed actions to protect nesting birds, including buffer size, etc. The nesting bird management plan will address the seasonal windows and survey needs as well as noise abatement measures that will occur just prior to construction. A single approach and methodology will not suffice for all species with potential to nest. This plan will be coordinated with USFWS and CDFW, with final approval being provided by both agencies in 2017 prior to construction in 2018. Below is a basic nesting bird survey method that can be incorporated into the document. At the very least, the plan must provide assurance that birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar protections under the California Fish and Game Code or federal and state Endangered Species Acts will not be harmed. The details in this plan will be coordinated with any water permitting that may have nesting bird stipulations. Within seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities (if between January 15 and September 1), a qualified biologist will perform a nesting bird (including raptors, colonial nesting species, and riparian bird species) survey that will consist of at least two site visits to each area with potential nesting habitat to determine whether there are active nests within 300 feet of the project footprint. This survey will also identify the species and, to the degree feasible, nesting stage (e.g., incubation of young, feeding of young, near fledging). Nests will be mapped (not by using GPS because close encroachment may cause nest abandonment). If active nests are found, construction will not occur within 300 feet of the nest until the nesting attempt has been completed and/or abandoned because of non -project related reasons. If pile -driving or similar work (e.g., coffer dam installation) is being conducted, the buffer should be increased if feasible to avoid noise and vibration impacts on nesting species (See BI0-21 for detailed noise avoidance measure). Colonial nesting species have been observed at the following overcrossings: Weirick Road (Station 1883+00), Temescal Wash channel (Station 2157+50), railroad/channel (Station 2180+00), I-15/SR- 91 interchange overcrossing (approximately Station 2190+00), Corona Avenue (Station 2243+00), and the Santa Ana River bridges (Station 2450+00). c) The final nesting bird management plan will be completed prior to NTP 2 and will be included in the Environmental Management Plan. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-25 31 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS Refer to measures B10-1 through B10-14, B10-16 through B10-19, B10-21, B10-22, B10-24, B10-26, B10-27, B10-29, and B10-31. PLANT SPECIES Refer to measures B10-2 through B10-14. ANIMAL SPECIES Refer to measures B10-1 through B10-29 and B10-31. B10-28: Burrowing owl management plan will be written. In the plan, the following information, at a minimum, will be included and performed for the project: a) Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl — Performed following the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) protocol between the window of March 1 through August 31 and in the survey season prior to scheduled construction. The survey will include the proposed limits of disturbance (LOD) and up to a 300-foot buffer if performed between February 1 and August 31. b) Preconstruction Survey for Burrowing Owl — Performed within 30 days prior to ground disturbance regardless of whether the species is found during the focused survey. The survey area would be the LOD and at least a 100-foot buffer. c) Protocol for Presence — Steps necessary for handling the presence of burrowing owl (if found during either of the two surveys), which may include full avoidance, if feasible, or passive relocation by a qualified ornithologist. d) Agency Approval — the burrowing owl management plan will need approval by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW and will be provided to these agencies for review no later than August 31, 2016. Final approval by the RCA and the wildlife agencies will be required prior to any ground disturbance.. e) The final burrowing owl management plan will be completed prior to NTP 2 and will be included in the Environmental Management Plan. (CEQA/NEPA, avoidance and minimization measure) 2-531 NES RCTC and Caltrans After Approval of the ED, Prior to construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-26 32 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO B10-30: All structures on bridges supporting bat nursery/roosting habitat will be returned to original or better condition at the completion of construction, where feasible. Where this is not feasible, permanent loss of such habitat will be mitigated through creation of suitable nursery/roosting habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio. This would be coordinated with CDFW. (CEQA/NEPA, mitigation measure) 2-532 NES RCTC and Contractor After Approval of the ED, Following construction Creation may consist of building and securing man-made constructed bat nursery/roost habitat on the I-15/Santa Ana bridge and/or placement of such habitat on suitable bridges up or downstream of the I-15/Santa Ana River bridge. B10-32: If Townsend's big -eared bat is confirmed present at the Santa Ana River, restoration of temporarily affected roosting/nursery habitat and replacement of permanently affected roosting/nursery habitat will occur at no less than a 1:1 ratio. This would be coordinated with CDFW under Section 2081 of CESA. (CEQA/NEPA, mitigation measure) 2-532 NES RCTC After Approval of the ED, Prior to Construction Creation may consist of building and securing man-made constructed bat nursery/roost habitat on the I-15/Santa Ana bridge and/or placement of such habitat on suitable bridges up or downstream of the I-15/Santa Ana River bridge. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES B10-25: In compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the permanent removal and shading of potential habitat for Santa Ana Sucker at the Santa Ana River will be replaced at a minimum of 1:1 ratio such that compensation is equivalent or superior to the acreage permanently affected by the Build Alternative. This replacement may be coordinated with the water permit. Mitigation has been reviewed by USFWS and CDFW and was found to be consistent with the MSHCP. Refer to B10-24 for additional details. (CEQA/NEPA, mitigation measure) 2-551 NES RCTC After Approval of the ED, Prior to Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-27 33 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO B10-33: In compliance with the biological opinion (dated April 20, 2016, revised April 29, 2016), no more than 24.00 acres of direct impacts on potentially suitable habitat for SKR can occur under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) within the SKR HCP fee area. If this take threshold is reached, Caltrans will ensure any operations causing such take will cease and reinitiate consultation. To ensure no more than 24.00 acres is impacted, Caltrans shall ensure a biological monitor tracks the identified SKR habitat that is subject to disturbance. Once the biological monitor has determined permanent and temporary impacts on SKR habitat have reached 80 percent of anticipated disturbance (19 .2 acres ), the biological monitor will map all potential SKR habitat disturbed with a sub -meter GPS weekly. Caltrans shall monitor and report on compliance with the established take threshold for all SKR habitat associated with the proposed action. (CEQA/NEPA, mitigation measure) 2-552 BO RE, Contractor, and Biologist During Grading/Construction Refer to measures B10-1 through B10-18, B10-21, B10-24, B10-26, B10-27, and B10-31 listed above. INVASIVE SPECIES Refer to measures B10-3 and B10-5 through B10-10 listed above. CLIMATE CHANGE CC-1: Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol are working with regional agencies to implement intelligent transportation systems (ITS), which help manage the efficiency of the existing highway system. ITS is commonly referred to as electronics, communications, or information processing, used singly or in combination, to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system. (CEQA/ minimization measure) 2-611 Air Quality Report RCTC and Caltrans During Final Design CC-2: The project would incorporate energy -efficient lighting, such as light- emitting diode (LED) traffic signals. LED bulbs cost $60 to $70 each but last five to six years, compared with the one-year average lifespan of the incandescent bulbs that were previously used. The LED bulbs themselves would consume 10 percent of the electricity of traditional lights, which would also help reduce the project's CO2 emissions. (CEQA/ minimization measure) 2-611 Air Quality Report RCTC, RE, Contractor Final Design, Construction CC-3: According to Caltrans' Standard Specifications, the contractor must comply with all of SCAQMD's rules, ordinances, and regulations regarding air quality restrictions. See also minimization measure AQ-1. (CEQA/ minimization measure) 2-611 Air Quality Report RE and Contractor During Grading/Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-28 34 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record Date of ECR: April 2016 Type/Date of Environmental Compliance: CEQA — IS with MND NEPA — EA with FONSI Project Phase: ® PA/ED (FED) ❑ PS&E Submittal ❑ ReValidation ( # _ ) During: _ Phase ❑ Ready To List ❑ Construction ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 8—RIV-15 PM RIV-15 34.7 to SBd-15 1.3 EA 08-0J0800 PN 0800000283 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Page # in Env. Doc. Environmental Analysis Source (Technical Study, Environmental Document, and/or Technical Discipline) Responsible for Development and/or Implementation of Measure Timing/ Phase If applicable, corresponding construction provision: (standard, special, non- standard) Action(s) Taken to Implement Measure Measure Completed (Date and Initials) Remarks Environmental Compliance YES NO Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation B-1: During Final Design, prior to Environmental Certification for this portion of the project, and prior to any construction activities related to the portion of the project within the City of Norco, a meeting with the city/community regarding the project's temporary impacts to River Trails Park will be scheduled. (NEPA / minimization measure) B-17 Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation RCTC During Final Design, and prior to Environmental Certification B-2: During Final Design, and prior to Environmental Certification, coordinate timing for temporary closure of the River Trails Park area under the 1-15 Santa Ana River Bridge with the City of Norco's Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments. (NEPA / minimization measure) B-17 Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation RCTC During Final Design, and prior to Environmental Certification B-3: During Final Design, and prior to Environmental Certification, prepare and approve a detour plan for equestrian use, based on coordination with the City of Norco's Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments. (NEPA / minimization measure) B-18 Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation RCTC During Final Design, and prior to Environmental Certification B-4: After Santa Ana River Bridge construction is complete, restore any River Trails Park area to before -project conditions. (NEPA / minimization measure) B-18 Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation RCTC Following completion of the Santa Ana River Bridge Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project D-29 35 Appendix D. Environmental Commitments Record This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment D-30 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 36 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley, and Portions of Unincorporated Riverside County Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California DISTRICT 8 RIV-15 PM 34.7 TO SBD-15 PM 1.3 PN 0800000283 / EA OJ0800 Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Ca!trans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 USC 327. athsrang May 2016 General Information about This Document For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please write to Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Attn: Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager, RCTC, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92502; call (951) 787-7141 (voice); or use the California Relay Service, at 1(909) 383-6300 (TTY). This page intentionally left blank SCR# 2015071074 8 — RN-15 PM 34.7 to SBa-15 PM 1.3 PN 08000002831 EA oJ0800 Construct one to two tolled express lanes along Interstate 15 from Cajalco Road (post mile [PM] 36.8) to State Route 60 (PM 51.4), a distance of approximately 14.6 miles, through the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County, California. Advance signage will be installed in relation to the limits of the project improvements —from the southern limits, PM 34.7 to PM 36.8 and from the northern limits PM 51.4 to PM 1.3 (in San Bernardino County). INITIAL STUDY with Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 USC 4332(2.)(C) and 49 USG 303 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and The Riverside County Transportation Commission Responsible Agency: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 514 G. Datd of Approval David Bricker Deputy District Director District 8 Division of Environmental Planning California Department of Transportation CEQA Lead Agency NEPA Lead Agency The following persons may be contacted for information concerning this document: California Department of Transportation James Shankel, Senior Environmental Planner 464 West 4m Street, 61" Floor, MS-827 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 (909) 383-6379 Riverside County Transportation Commission Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager 4080 Lemon Street, 3fd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 (951) 787-7141 This page intentionally left blank SCH #2015071074 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to construct one to two tolled express lanes along Interstate 15 (1-15) through the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County, California. Determination The Department has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and following public review, has determined from this study that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: The project would have no effect on: • Coastal Zone • Farmlands/Timberlands • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Growth • Geology and Soils • Cultural Resources In addition, the project would have less -than -significant effects on: • Air Quality • Land Use • Parks and Recreational Facilities • Utilities/Emergency Services • Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • Community Character and Cohesion • Floodplains • Water Quality • Visual/Aesthetic Resources • Paleontological Resources • Noise • Plant Species • Invasive Species • Waters of the United States and Waters of the State • Wetlands With the following mitigation measures incorporated, the project would have less -than -significant effects on: • Natural Communities, Threatened and Endangered Species, Animal Species, and Wetlands and Other Waters B1O-16: Compensation of permanent impacts on 2.62 acres of riparian-riverine resources (including permanent shading) would occur at a 3:1 ratio for riparian resources and a 1:1 ratio for ephemeral drainages. The compensation, 6.33 acres for 2.11 acres of riparian resources and 0.51 acre for 0.51 acre of ephemeral resources, can be a combination of enhancement, restoration, and/or creation (rehabilitation) as long as there is no net loss of riparian-riverine resources. The project will mitigate for impacts on 0.68 acre of CDFW jurisdictional waters of the State, 2.82 acres of RWQCB jurisdictional waters of the state, 0.17 acre of federal jurisdictional non -wetlands, and 0.14 acre of federal jurisdictional wetlands at a minimum 1:1 ratio. This means that, at the very least, the amount of riparian-riverine resources removed and the amount being created (rehabilitated) must be at a 1:1 ratio. The remaining compensation can occur as enhancement and restoration. Compensatory mitigation will be coordinated with Clean Water Act (CWA) 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement acquisition to ensure efficiencies with the mitigation effort. Purchase of mitigation bank credits through an approved in -lieu fee program and/or creation of riparian-riverine resources, including federal and state jurisdictional water resources within the Santa Ana River watershed, will be researched as an option; however, compensation must occur within the SAR and/or directly adjacent. The compensation required under this measure should incorporate the creation of occupied least Bell's vireo (LBV) habitat for time and monetary efficiencies (refer to measure B1O-26 for more details on LBV compensatory mitigation). B1O-17 The temporary impacts on 14.90 acres of riparian-riverine resources are to be replaced through restoration at their current locations at a 1:1 ratio, except for the 1.70 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest; it will be restored at its current location at a 1:1 ratio, and off -site compensation will occur at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 1.70 acres x 2 equals 3.40 acres) Details of this compensation have been provided in the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report (measure B1O-15). To reduce temporal loss of temporary impacts on riparian vegetation at the SAR, if feasible, riparian vegetation will be removed from the temporary impact footprint through cutting, whereby vegetation will be cut to ground level, thus leaving the root system. All riparian-riverine areas will be revegetated with similar riparian vegetation as was present prior to impacts or will be vegetated with appropriate native vegetation if it was not present prior to construction. A detailed HMMP will be required with the final HMMP provided to the RCA. Monitoring will occur for no less than five years for riparian vegetated impact areas, once seeding and planting is completed. Because the federally and state -listed as endangered least Bell's vireo occupies the riparian-riverine resources at the Santa Ana River area proposed for impact, the compensation for both riparian-riverine resources and least Bell's vireo will be integrated. The mitigation ratios presented in this measure are required at a minimum to reduce permanent and temporary impacts on riparian- riverine resources to a level of less than significant under CEQA and not adverse under NEPA. Final mitigation ratios for impacts triggering CWA 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 will be determined through consultation with USACE, RWQCB, USFWS, and CDFW. B1O-23: Public/Quasi-Public lands in Existing Core A permanently removed (0.12 acre) will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. This will be coordinated with riparian-riverine compensation and jurisdictional resources permitting. Prior to land acquisition or purchase of mitigation credits, an equivalency report will be provided that analyzes the existing biological resources being permanently removed to the biological resources supported by the lands proposed for acquisition. The resource values will need to be equivalent and reviewed by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW. Execution of this mitigation measure is provided under i the compensatory mitigation needed for least Bell's vireo (B10-26) and riparian-riverine resources (B10-15, BI0-16, B10-17) at the Santa Ana River. B10-25: In compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the permanent removal and shading of potential habitat for Santa Ana Sucker at the Santa Ana River will be replaced at a minimum of 1:1 ratio such that compensation is equivalent or superior to the acreage permanently affected by the Build Alternative. This replacement may be coordinated with the water permit. Mitigation has been reviewed by USFWS and CDFW and was found to be consistent with the MSHCP. Refer to B10-24 for additional details. BI0-26- The permanent removal of occupied least Bell's vireo {LBV} habitat (termed use areas in this document) will be Compensated at a 3:1 ratio, with compensation occurring as creation and/or restoration. For all LBV-occupied habitat temporarily removed during construction, restoration would occur at their original locations at a 1:1 ratio. Creation and restoration potential is present at the Santa Ana River with all compensation within or directly adjacent to the SAR. Compensation for LBV impacts will be coordinated with the MSHCP riparian-riverine resources mitigation (measures B10-16 and B10-17) and water permitting for time and monetary efficiencies. B10-30: All structures on bridges supporting bat nursery/roosting habitat will be returned to original or better condition at the completion of construction, where feasible. Where this is not feasible, permanent loss of such habitat will be mitigated through creation of suitable nursery/roosting habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio. This would be coordinated with CDFW. B10-32: If Townsend's big -eared bat is confirmed present at the Santa Ana River, restoration of temporarily affected roosting/nursery habitat and replacement of permanently affected roosting/nursery habitat will occur at no less than a 1:1 ratio. This would be coordinated with CDFW under Section 2081 of CESA. BI0-33: In compliance with the biological opinion (dated April 20, 2016, revised April 29, 2016), no more than 24.00 acres of direct impacts on potentially suitable habitat for SKR can occur under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) within the SKR HCP fee area. If this take threshold is reached, Caltrans will ensure any operations causing such take will cease and reinitiate consultation. To ensure no more than 24.00 acres is impacted. Caltrans shall ensure a biological monitor tracks the identified SKR habitat that is subject to disturbance. Once the biological monitor has determined permanent and temporary impacts on SKR habitat have reached 80 percent of anticipated disturbance (19.2 acres), the biological monitor will map all potential SKR habitat disturbed with a sub -meter GPS weekly. Caltrans shall monitor and report on compliance with the established take threshold for all SKR habitat associated with the proposed action. David Bricker Dateq4lir Deputy District Director District 8 Division of Environmental Planning California Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project R1V-15 PM 34.7 to SBd-15 PM 1.3 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has determined that the Build Alternative, (the Preferred Alternative), will have no significant impact on the human environment. The Build Alternative includes construction of one or two tolled express lanes in each direction on 1-15 in Riverside County between PM 36.8 and PM 51.4. Sign improvements would also be made to inform and guide users of the new tolled express lanes. Advanced signage is required to be posted at a minimum of two miles prior to the start of the tolled express lanes. The project limits for the signage extend from PM 34.7 in Riverside County to PM 1.3 in San Bernardino County. The Build Alternative would specifically provide one tolled express lane in each direction from Cajalco Road to Hidden Valley Parkway, provide two tolled express lanes in each direction from Hidden Valley Parkway northbound and Second Street sorthbound (Norco) to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road (Eastvale/Jurupa Valley), and construct one tolled express lane in each direction from Cantu Galleano Ranch Road (Eastvale/Jurupa Valley) to SR-60, with isolated outside widening at Riverside Avenue to maintain lane balance for the SR-60 W B loop connector. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) and the associated Technical Studies and design documents, which have been independently evaluated by Caltrans and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Caltrans takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA and the associated Technical Studies and design documents. The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable Federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried -out by Caltrans raider its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 USC 327. Date David Bricker Deputy District Director District 8 Division of Environmental Planning California Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Proposed Project 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.1.1 Existing Facility 1-2 1.1.2 Project Background 1-7 1.1.3 Purpose and Need 1-8 1.1.4 Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety 1-10 1.1.5 Roadway Deficiencies 1-18 1.1.6 Social Demands or Economic Development 1-19 1.1.7 Legislation 1-19 1.1.8 Modal Relationships and System Linkages 1-21 1.1.9 Air Quality Improvements 1-23 1.1.10 Independent Utility and Logical Termini 1-23 1.2 Project Description 1-24 1.3 Alternatives 1-25 1.3.1 No -Build (No -Action) Alternative 1-25 1.3.2 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 1-25 1.3.3 Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management Alternatives 1-122 1.3.4 Identification of a Preferred Alternative 1-122 1.3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion 1-123 1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed 1-124 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2-1 2.1 Human Environment 2-2 2.1.1 Land Use 2-2 2.1.2 Parks and Recreational Facilities 2-32 2.1.3 Growth 2-48 2.1.4 Community Impacts 2-53 2.1.5 Environmental Justice 2-74 2.1.6 Utilities/Emergency Services 2-100 2.1.7 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2-108 2.1.8 Visual/Aesthetics 2-144 2.1.9 Cultural Resources 2-179 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment i Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents 2.2 Physical Environment 2-185 2.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain 2-185 2.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 2-194 2.2.3 Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography 2-211 2.2.4 Paleontology 2-221 2.2.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials 2-231 2.2.6 Air Quality 2-236 2.2.7 Noise 2-279 2.3 Biological Environment 2-421 2.3.1 Natural Communities 2-421 2.3.2 Wetlands and Other Waters 2-497 2.3.3 Plant Species 2-504 2.3.4 Animal Species 2-508 2.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 2-540 2.3.6 Invasive Species 2-559 2.4 Cumulative Impacts 2-561 2.4.1 Regulatory Setting 2-561 2.5 Climate Change (CEQA) 2-603 2.5.1 Regulatory Setting 2-603 2.5.2 Project Analysis 2-606 Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination 3-1 3.1 Scoping Process 3-1 3.2 Consultation and Coordination with Public Agencies 3-3 3.2.1 Biological Resources 3-3 3.2.2 Cultural Resources 3-4 3.2.3 Air Quality 3-11 3.2.4 Parks and Recreation Areas 3-12 3.2.5 Agency Correspondence and Documentation 3-12 3.3 Community Outreach and Public Involvement 3-61 3.4 Comments and Responses to Comments on Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment 3-79 3.4.1 Master Responses 3-80 Chapter 4 List of Preparers 4-1 Chapter 5 Distribution List 5-1 5.1 Agencies 5-1 5.2 Elected Officials 5-6 5.3 Interested Groups, Organizations, and Individuals 5-8 5.4 Property Owners Located within 500-Foot Radius 5-14 Chapter 6 References Cited 6-1 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents List of Appendices Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist Appendix B Section 4(f) Evaluation Appendix C Title VI Policy Statement Appendix D Environmental Commitment Record Appendix E List of Acronyms Appendix F List of Technical Studies Appendix G Traffic Tables Appendix H Regional Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix I Air Quality Conformity Determination Letter Appendix J Biological Opinion Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank Initial Study/Environmental Assessment iv Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents List of Tables Table Page 1-1 Existing (2013) Freeway Weaving Segment Peak Hour Level of Service 1-13 1-2 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service — No -Build Alternative — Segments with LOS E 1-14 1-3 Year 2040 Freeway Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service — No -Build Alternative — Segments with LOS E or F 1-15 1-4 Actual and Average Accident Rates (Per Million Vehicle Miles) 1-18 1-5 Mainline Accidents 1-18 1-6 Traffic Volume split at SR-60 1-24 1-7 Proposed Bridge Improvements 1-26 1-8 Summary of Mandatory Design Exceptions 1-121 1-9 Required Permits, Reviews, and Approvals 1-124 2-1 Recent and Planned Area Development 2-13 2-2 Federal, Regional, and Local Programs, Plans and Policies Consistency 2-24 2-3 Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 mile of the Project Limits 2-32 2-4 Population Trends 2-50 2-5 Race and Ethnicity Breakdown 2-57 2-6 Median Household Income and Population below Poverty Level 2-59 2-7 Median Age 2-63 2-8 Housing Characteristics 2-65 2-9 Average Household Sizes 2-66 2-10 Housing Values 2-67 2-11 Labor Force, Unemployment, and Per Capita Income 2-69 2-12 Employment from 2008 through 2035 2-70 2-13 Major Employers in the Study Area 2-70 2-14 Schools within 0.5 Mile of the Project 2-71 2-15 Community Centers and Public Services within 0.5 Mile of the Project 2-72 2-16 Minority Populations in the Direct Impact Area 2-77 2-17 Minority Populations in the Extended Resource Area 2-78 2-18 Minority Populations in the Region of Comparison 2-78 2-19 Low -Income Populations in the Direct Impact Area 2-81 2-20 Low -Income Populations in the Extended Resource Area 2-82 2-21 Low -Income Populations in the Region of Comparison 2-82 2-22 Counties of Residence and Employment by Minority Status 2-85 2-23 Counties of Residence and Employment by Low -Income Status 2-86 2-24 Commuter Modes —Extended Resource Area 2-87 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment v Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents 2-25 Modes of Transportation and Minority Status in Extended Resource Area 2-87 2-26 Modes of Transportation and Low-income Status in Extended Resource Area 2-88 2-27 Comparison of Years 2013 and 2040 MSAT Emissions (Ibs/day) 2-91 2-28 Emergency Services within 0.5 Mile of the Project 2-100 2-29 Utilities within the Project Limits 2-101 2-30 Existing (2013) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes on Freeway Mainline 2-110 2-31 Existing (2013) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes on Freeway Ramp 2-112 2-32 Existing (2013) Freeway Mainline Level of Service 2-114 2-33 Level of Service Criteria for Intersection (Control Delay per Vehicle) 2-117 2-34 Existing (2013) Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service 2-117 2-35 Existing Year 2013 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary 2-119 2-36 Year 2020 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary —No Build Alternative2-121 2-37 Opening Year 2020 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary Comparison2-122 2-38 Freeway Mainline Peak -Hour Level of Service 2-123 2-39 Freeway Ramp Peak -Hour Level of Service 2-128 2-40 Freeway Weave Peak -Hour Level of Service 2-131 2-41 Intersection Peak -Hour Level of Service 2-132 2-42 Year 2040 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary —No Build Alternative2-134 2-43 Design Year 2040 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary Comparison 2-135 2-44 Year 2040 Express Lane Ingress/Egress Peak Hour Level of Service —Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 2-137 2-45 Number of Deficient Segments across All Scenarios 2-140 2-46 Travel Time Summary 2-140 2-47 Travel Time Summary, Year 2020 2-142 2-48 Travel Time Summary Year 2040 2-142 2-49 Summary of Key View Narrative Ratings 2-176 2-50 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Pollutants of Concern 2-203 2-51 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2-239 2-52 Air Quality Data from Mira Loma Van Buren (ARB 33165) and Norco-Norconian (33155) Stations 2-242 2-53 List of Best Available Control Measures from SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 2-261 2-54 Estimate of Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Construction (pounds per day) 2-264 2-55 Estimate of Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Long-term Operations (pounds per day) 2-265 2-56 1-15 Mainline ADT Volumes 2-269 2-57 Peak -Hour Approach Lane Volumes Used in the 2003 AQMP Attainment Demonstration 2-272 2-58 Horizon Year Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Intersection Approach Lane Volumes 2-272 2-59 Comparison of Years 2013 and 2040 MSAT Emissions in Pounds per Day 2-275 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment vi Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents 2-60 Noise Abatement Criteria 2-279 2-61 Summary of Short -Term Measurements 2-283 2-62 Long -Term Noise Measurement Data Summary 2-379 2-63 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT1 2-380 2-64 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT2 2-381 2-65 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT3 2-382 2-66 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT4 2-383 2-67 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT5 2-384 2-68 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT6 2-385 2-69 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT7 2-386 2-70 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT8 2-387 2-71 Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT9 2-388 2-72 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Sound Levels in the TNM 2.5 Model 2-390 2-73 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels 2-397 2-74 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area A, Barriers A2 and A3 2-403 2-75 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area B, Barrier B1 2-404 2-76 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area C, Barrier C1 2-405 2-77 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area C, Barrier C3 2-406 2-78 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area D, Barrier D2 — D4 2-407 2-79 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area D, Barrier D5 2-408 2-80 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area E, Barrier E5 2-409 2-81 Summary of Reasonableness Determination Data —Area E, Barrier E2 2-410 2-82 Noise Levels for Existing, Future No -Build, and Future Build 2-411 2-83 Study Area Acreages by Vegetation Community 2-453 2-84 Regional Plant Species and Habitats of Concern Present 2-454 2-85 Regional Plant Species and Habitats of Concern Absent 2-456 2-86 Temporary Impacts on Riparian-Riverine Resources by the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 2-475 2-87 Permanent Impact Acreages by Vegetation Community 2-478 2-88 Permanent Impacts on Riparian-Riverine Resources by the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 2-479 2-89 Summary of Temporary Impacts on Federal Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 2-499 2-90 Summary of Temporary Impacts on State Streambeds 2-500 2-91 Summary of Permanent Impacts on Federal Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 2-501 2-92 Summary of Impacts on State Streambeds 2-501 2-93 Regional Animal Species and Their Habitats Present 2-510 2-94 Regional Animal Species and Their Habitats Absent 2-522 2-95 Daily Traffic (VMT, VHT, Average Speed) and Annual CO2 Emissions Comparisons, Existing and Future 2-609 2-96 Average Required Fuel Economy (mpg) 2-611 2-97 Climate Change/CO2 Reduction Strategies 2-616 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment vii Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents 3-1 Native American Contacts 3-5 3-2 AB52 Consultation 3-8 3-3 Comments Received 3-79 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment viii Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Page 1-1 Project Vicinity 1-3 1-2 Project Location 1-5 1-3 Levels of Service for Freeways 1-11 1-4 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Map (Index) 1-29 1-5 Typical Sections 1-117 2-1 Unincorporated Riverside County Land Uses 2-5 2-2 City of Corona Land Uses 2-7 2-3 City of Norco Land Uses 2-9 2-4 Eastvale, Jurupa, and Unincorporated San Bernardino County Land Uses 2-11 2-5 Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 Mile of the Project (Southern Portion) 2-35 2-6 Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 Mile of the Project (Northern Portion) 2-39 2-7 Population Density of Study Area Census Tracts 2-55 2-8 Ranges of Median Household Incomes in the Study Area 2-61 2-9 Direct Impact Area and Extended Resource Area 2-75 2-10 Minority Concentration Areas within the Direct Impact Area 2-79 2-11 Low -Income Areas within the Direct Impact Area 2-83 2-12 Carpooling versus Driving Alone for Low -Income Commuters in the Extended Resource Area 2-89 2-13 Identified Visual Resources and Eligible Scenic Highway 2-145 2-14 Visual Assessment Units and Key View Locations 2-149 2-15 Key View 1—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-153 2-16 Key View 2—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-155 2-17 Key View 3—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-157 2-18 Key View 4—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-159 2-19 Key View 5—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-161 2-20 Key View 6—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-163 2-21 Key View 7—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-165 2-22 Key View 8—Existing and Proposed Condition 2-167 2-23 Floodplains in the Study Area 2-187 2-24 Hydrologic Units and Areas 2-199 2-25 Hydrologic Sub -Areas and Surface Waters 2-201 2-26 Faults 2-215 2-27 Summary Paleontological Sensitivity Map 2-223 2-28 Sensitive Receptor Locations 2-245 2-29 Noise Levels of Common Activities 2-280 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment ix Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Table of Contents 2-30 Analysis Areas, Noise Monitoring and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers 2-289 2-31 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 2-423 2-32 Recent and Planned Area Development 2-563 2-33 California Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2-607 2-34 Possible Effect of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On -Road CO2 Emission 2-608 2-35 Cascade of Uncertainties 2-612 2-36 The Mobility Pyramid 2-614 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment x Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1 Proposed Project Changes have been made to this Environmental Document since the public circulation of the Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment (draft IS/EA) from July 29 to August 28, 2015. Public and agency comments received during the circulation of the draft IS/EA and the public hearing that was held on August 12, 2015, resulted in refinements that have been incorporated into this Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. A vertical line in the outside margin of this document indicates changes to the text in relation to the corresponding part in the draft IS/EA. 1.1 Introduction The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to construct tolled express lanes on a portion of Interstate 15 (I-15) within Riverside County to improve existing and future traffic operations and mainline travel times, expand travel choice, increase travel time reliability, and expand the tolled express lane network. As proposed, the project would construct one to two tolled express lanes between post miles (PM) 36.8 and 51.4 in Riverside County, a distance of 14.6 miles. Based on preliminary engineering, this area constitutes the extent of planned lane improvements and is identified as the project limits The lane improvements are located within Riverside County, California and run through the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley and portions of unincorporated Riverside County. Tolled Express Lane (TEL) advance signage is required a minimum of two miles prior to the start of the express lanes. The limits for the planned TEL signage extend south on I-15 from PM 36.8 to 34.7 in Riverside County and extend north on I-15 from PM 51.4 in Riverside County to PM 1.3 in San Bernardino County; these constitute the advance signage limits for the project. Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 show the project area in relation to the regional highway system. The Express Lanes are planned to be constructed largely within the existing I-15 median. It is anticipated that all proposed improvements would be constructed within existing Caltrans right of way. Project construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 and be completed in 2020; the express lanes are anticipated to open in 2020. Caltrans is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Caltrans is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is identified in the approved 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP; SCAG 2014a) as project RIV071267. The 2015 FTIP was adopted by SCAG on September 11, 2014 and approved for air quality conformity by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on December 15, 2014. It includes all federally funded and regionally significant projects. The project description included in the approved 2015 FTIP is: "I-15 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY: CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL EXPR LNS (TEL) (2 TE EA DIR) FROM SR60 (PM 51.4) TO HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY (PM 42.9) AND CONS 2 TE LNS (1 TE EA DIR) FROM HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY (PM 42.9) TO CAJALCO Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-1 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project RD (PM 36.8). ADVANCE SIGNAGE WILL BE INSTALLED A THE SOUTH END BETWEEN 34.7 TO PM 36.8 (CAJALCO RD) AND AT THE NORTH END BETWEEN PM 51.4 (SR60) TO PM 52.28 (PM 1.3 IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY)." The project is consistent with the current FTIP project description. The current project cost has been estimated at $406.5 million, including construction, right of way, and support costs. The current FTIP identifies that there is currently $455 million that has been programmed for the project. Therefore, the project as proposed is fully funded. Approximately 40 percent of the project is anticipated to be funded through RCTC's Measure A. These funds were obligated under the 30-year half -cent sales tax measure that the voters of Riverside County passed in 2006 and that runs from 2009 through 2039. In addition, the project is eligible for federal aid funding. Roughly 30 percent of the project funding is anticipated to be obtained through Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loans. The TIFIA program provides federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance. The remaining 30 percent is to be derived from Toll Revenue Bonds. Toll Revenue Bonds are paid back with the collection of tolls on the express lanes. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the metropolitan planning organization that represents six counties and 191 cities in southern California. The project is included as project RIV071267 in Amendment No. 2 of the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that was approved by SCAG on September 11, 2014 (SCAG 2014b). The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS was originally adopted by SCAG in April 2012 (SCAG 2012) and approved by FHWA in June 2012. At that time, the project was included as an element of larger project RIV071267. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS was found to be conforming by FHWA on December 14, 2012, and included the project as a portion of project RIV071267. The current project is included in SCAG's RTP/SCS Amendment 2, which was approved in September 2014. With the approval of Amendment 2, the project is consistent with the current RTP. 1.1.1 Existing Facility Throughout the study area I-15 is typically a six -lane facility (three 12-foot mixed flow lanes in each direction). The existing median shoulder varies from five to ten feet while outside shoulders are typically ten feet wide throughout the project area. The existing median is generally 70 feet wide and is primarily unpaved beyond the median shoulders. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-2 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Re•RSFIELe SANTA C/ANLTA• 3 THOU OAKS . C 4 f i r TORRANCE Legend Project Limits Source: Riverside county (2008) ESRI Street Map (2009) ESRI Shaded Relief (2009) RnSAMnpn PLEnlML&= -"- ,� 1 f AI. II ORNIA LI TY' GLENDORA ROE Ytcro UN TAr<A APPLE VALLEY HESPERIA REOIAN DS NAMPA VALLEY NORCO •IYERSIVE VALLEY OAP� ITENIFEE 'CANYON LAKE OCEANS I OE 13 TULAI PA GLiIItSA NARNTRG S AUMbMT� .-- SAN I lAt[NTo NU ETA ITECOLA [:ARLSBRS15AN MARCQS CORONA DO ESLONOlan ALPINE Praiect • "Location -� cA=NEORAq[Try RANplO MIRAGE Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-4 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project ir-- W Mission Blvd 10 r cr fq : rl •3, n c. - O N :81r a ', a�i'r\\ ','`sc i •1i \ 7F i ,^y/ a i f1 Pi , \ y sp '- Y14-\ W \ i I '6 .....- =y b'� t'�e .i , ,- Foothill Blvd oRd to SR601Map DocslmxthIS EA1 EngDPR 84357/115 C Ion \Projects\RCTC 20215911-15 T 0 a 1i ; s r SAN BERNARDENO COUNTY rroverdale Rd EASTVAL I � 3 a St v* -y \j7 CORONA ' -- J-}1, `, s ` `: . r �+ i °prhrll p ~"t-' S • ea t<\ $ .``M �) - ,, •k,,, r' I a � s\ -4\,,! C v , n ' 1— 4G --I National Forest ae 1_ Advance Signage Limits (sign installation within freeway right of way only; no other project construction) North: SBD-15 PM 1.3 Project Limits (Lane Improvement Limits) North: RIV-15 PM 51.4 onite Ave Mission Blvd Liai r r JURUPA )%4,,, VALLEY• ,�--• ,.! 6th St J 5th St . S 4th St 'NORCO L ri .4.," --A so RANGE OUNTY Legend Project Limits _ Advance Signage Limits Source: Riverside County (2008) ESRI Street Map (2009) ESRI Shaded Relief (2009) a E6thS a RIVERSIDE 4.7 Project Limits (Lane Improvement Limits) South: RIV-15 PM 36.8 dl o� a Cajalc Advance Signage Limits (sign installation within freeway right of way only; no other project construction) South: RIV-15 PM 34.7 0 -a 4 C C o'--------- RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAKE'1114.:'I I ELSINORE 0 1 2 4-------- ' NATIONAL FOREST Miles 0 • x a 215 Figure 1-2 Project Location Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-6 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.1.2 Project Background In 1988, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a half -cent sales tax for transportation improvements, in response to growing congestion. The $1 billion raised by Measure A from 1989 to 2009 benefitted virtually every major roadway in the County, as well as commuter rail and public transit. In 2002, Measure A was extended by Riverside County voters through 2039; this 30-year extension included improvements to the I-15 corridor. The 2009-2039 Measure A extension plan was to add a lane in each direction on I-15 from State Route 60 (SR-60) to the San Diego County line. In the spring of 2006, RCTC assessed the feasibility of tolling four freeway corridors in Riverside County and concluded that portions of the State Route 91 (SR-91) and I-15 corridors were generally feasible to toll from a financial, traffic operation, and engineering standpoint. Throughout 2006, engineering, project scoping, and traffic and revenue study work was performed. A project scope was developed to both meet the Measure A commitment to voters as well as to use tolling to fund more congestion relief and build more improvements than would have otherwise been possible using Measure A funds and other traditional state and federal freeway funding sources. In December 2006, RCTC approved the 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan to advance the development of the highest priority projects in the 30-year Measure A extension. The 10-Year Delivery Plan called for development of high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes within the I-15 corridor (RCTC 2006, 2010, 2013a). RCTC's approval of the 10-Year Delivery Plan also authorized staff to begin environmental and preliminary engineering studies for projects within the plan, including the I-15 corridor. In 2006, as part of the 10-Year Delivery Plan approval, RCTC also directed staff to include in the I-15 project scope a general purpose lane in each direction from the San Bernardino County line to State Route 74 (SR-74), a distance of approximately 31 miles. The addition of general purpose lanes added significant costs to the project and reduced its financial feasibility. The economic downturn of 2008 led to traffic and transportation revenue declines and a change in the transportation bond market affecting the economic feasibility of large-scale projects. In Riverside County, Measure A revenue dropped by 29 percent between 2007 and 2009 and revenue forecasts for 2009 through 2019 were less than half the forecast developed in 2006. RCTC concluded that moving forward with the original scope of the project was not financially feasible. RCTC established an ad hoc committee of County Transportation Commissioners from the cities along the I-15 corridor to provide input and direction on the future of the project. The need to maximize the value of improvements by focusing the project on the area with the greatest need for congestion relief and to minimize the need for Measure A funds in the short term emerged as guiding principles. Through traffic modeling and analysis, the 14.6 mile segment from SR-60 to Cajalco Road was determined to have the highest congestion and, therefore, the greatest need for improvement. RCTC undertook a feasibility study to assess the viability of various project options, all of which focused on improving congestion relief by 2020 along the 14.6-mile corridor from SR-60 to Cajalco Road. Three options were considered: Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-7 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project • Tolled Express Lanes. • Tolled Express Lanes, plus the addition of General Purpose (GP) Lanes by 2039. • Carpool Lanes. The feasibility study evaluated the northbound and southbound time savings value of each option in terms of Measure A cost per minute saved, defined as Measure A dollars required to save each vehicle one minute of travel time. Several qualitative factors were also considered: meeting Measure A commitments to Riverside County voters; ensuring consistency with the regional toll network; constructing future GP lanes; fiscal feasibility; feasibility of construction by 2020; and maximizing revenues for other future I-15 projects (RCTC 2013b). The tolled express lanes option provided the largest fundable capacity increase in the short to medium term and was the only option capable of providing congestion relief by 2020. In addition, because construction would largely occur within the I-15 median and existing right of way, fewer environmental impacts would occur. Further, the tolled express lanes option would provide driver choices not currently available —congestion free travel for a fee, carpooling for 3+ vehicles is anticipated to be free or at reduced rates, and expanded opportunities for existing and future regional express bus operations through use of the tolled express lanes (RCTC 2013b). A project like this would also easily feed into the tolled express lanes project underway on SR-91, furthering tolled express lane system continuity. Finally, tolled express lanes would allow future toll revenues to be used to fund additional transportation needs along I-15. 1.1.3 Purpose and Need 1.1.3.1 PROJECT PURPOSE The primary purpose of the project is to improve congested traffic operations, taking into account current and future (2040) travel demand, on the I-15 corridor between Cajalco Road (PM 36.8) and the I-15/SR-60 Interchange (PM 51.4) just south of the San Bernardino County line. The I-15 Express Lanes Project is intended to achieve the following purposes: • Improve existing and future traffic operations and mainline travel times. • Expand travel choice. • Increase travel time reliability. • Expand tolled express lane network. According to the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, increased travel demand results in congestion on roadways if capacity does not keep up with the demand. Inclusion in the RTP/SCS demonstrates that I-15 between Cajalco Road and SR-60 has been determined to be a corridor that needs additional capacity to address existing and projected demands from the growth and development that is currently taking place and is expected to continue in communities along the I-15 corridor. The increased traffic demand and congestion is expected to result in longer commute times and operational degradation of the freeway mainline and associated local interchanges. The projected Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-8 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project operational deficiencies on this portion of the regional highway system are expected to adversely impact the vital role that I-15 performs in relation to regional transportation needs. 1.1.3.2 PROJECT NEED The primary needs for the project are a result of the following conditions: • Current and Future Lack of Capacity. As shown in Tables 1-1 through 1-3, and further described in Section 1.1.4.1, existing traffic volumes are close to highway capacity and travel forecasts show continuing traffic growth in the I-15 corridor. Continued growth in the study area has resulted in increased travel on I-15 and this situation is predicted to continue in the future, resulting in heavy congestion and decreased mobility causing longer commute times and decreased access for residents and businesses. Based on the latest travel demand model and development of traffic volumes, it is expected that the I-15 traffic volumes along this corridor will increase by approximately 37 percent south of SR-91 and 26 percent between SR-91 and SR-60 by year 2040. As a result, the I-15 corridor will continue to experience increased congestion and longer commute times that will further degrade the roadway capacity and traffic flow of the freeway mainline and on local interchanges. For example, northbound PM peak travel times over the project limits are expected to increase from 20.1 minutes in 2020 to 54.0 minutes in 2040 (Caltrans 2014a). • Reduced Function of I-15. The expected increase in congestion and deteriorating traffic conditions along the I-15 corridor will reduce the overall function of the facility as a high speed freeway and will decrease overall local and regional mobility for the motoring public and users of the facility. Existing heavy peak -hour congestion and traffic delays due to high traffic volumes, along with vehicle weaving and merge/diverge movements continue to reduce mobility along mainline I-15. For example, the number of ramp junctions (the points where on- and off -ramps enter and exit I-15) operating at unsatisfactory levels of service in the AM peak will increase from 3 in 2020 to 25 in 2040. In the PM peak hour, the number of ramp junctions with unsatisfactory levels of service will increase from 6 in 2020 to 28 in 2040 (Caltrans 2014a). Recurring daily congestion resulting from travel demand exceeding available highway capacity will result in slower travel speeds and increased travel times. • Lack of Travel Time Reliability. Average travel time along the I-15 corridor is increasing, as is the variability of travel time. Non -recurring congestion (non -recurring because it happens differently every day) increases travel time variability in the corridor. Because of the unreliable travel times, people must allow extra time for travel during more congested conditions to be sure that they will arrive at their destinations on time. The proposed tolled express lanes will provide travelers the option to pay for reliable travel time when needed. The express lanes will be managed in accordance with Caltrans' Traffic Operations Policy Directive Number 11-02, Issued March 23, 2011 (Caltrans 2011), so that demand in the express lanes is regulated to a level that results in an acceptable level of service at all times. Additional needs for the I-15 Express Lanes Project are a result of the following conditions: • Lack of Travel Choice. Regional and statewide planning documents emphasize the need for both more transportation capacity and ways to accommodate travel demands more efficiently and reliably and through a variety of travel choices. The express lanes will offer a choice for reliable travel times. Travelers may choose to pay a toll to use the express lanes. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-9 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project • Lack of Tolled Express Lane Continuity within the Freeway System. There is a need to minimize existing and projected freeway congestion by improving the carrying capacity of I- 15 and operating it in a manner consistent with the SR-91 Express Lanes Project. This project would extend the tolled express lane system from Corona south of SR-91 and would provide new tolled express lanes north of SR-91, reducing the number of vehicles in the general purpose lanes, thereby reducing the level of congestion and delay for all users of I-15. The project is an incremental step toward implementing the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, which identifies an extensive tolled express lane network within SCAG's jurisdiction (see page 56, Table 2.6 of SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS), including express lanes throughout the SCAG region. Table 1 (page 6) of the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS estimates the investment to close gaps in the high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) network, add freeway -to -freeway direct HOV connectors, and develop a connected network of express/HOT lanes at $20.9 billion. Page 56 of the RTP/SCS states, "Additional efforts underway include the extension of the SR-91 Express Lanes to I-15 in Riverside County along with planned Express Lanes on I-15." 1.1.4 Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety 1.1.4.1 CAPACITY AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND Roadway capacity is determined by the number of vehicles that can reasonably pass over a given section of roadway in a given period of time. The Highway Capacity Manual, prepared by the National Transportation Research Board, identifies travel speed, freedom to maneuver, and proximity to other vehicles as important factors in determining the level of service (LOS) on a roadway (National Transportation Research Board 2000). The ability of a highway to accommodate traffic is typically measured in terms of LOS. Traffic flow is classified by LOS, ranging from LOS A (free -flow traffic with low volumes and high speeds) to LOS F (traffic volume exceeds design capacity with forced flow and substantial delays) (see Figure 1-3). Daily traffic volumes are used to estimate the extent to which peak hour traffic volumes equal or exceed the maximum desirable capacity of a roadway. The LOS for freeways is shown in Figure 1-3, Levels of Service for Freeways. The I-15 Route Concept Report, a Caltrans long-range planning document that establishes a concept for the highway and describes the improvements necessary to achieve the concept, identifies the LOS standard for the freeway as LOS D in urbanized areas, including I-15 from the San Bernardino County line south to Cajalco Road. According to the U.S. Census 2012 five-year estimates, the mean travel time to work in minutes of workers over age 16 for residents of Riverside County was 31.8 minutes (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a), which is almost five minutes more than the mean travel time to work of 27.1 minutes for the state of California as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a). Similarly, the mean travel time to work for residents of Corona, Norco, and Eastvale, three of the cities located along the project corridor, was 33.9 minutes, 33.4 minutes, and 39.9 minutes respectively. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-10 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project LEVELS,IFAMICE I� Flow Op rpaSi eed Technical ISarvlae Conditions (mph) Descriptions • • ce) ,fE F 70 70 67 62 53 <53 Highest quality of service. Traffic flows freely with little or no restrictions on speed or maneuverability. No delays Traffic is stable and flows Freely. The ability to maneuver in traffic is only slighty restricted. No delays Few restrictions on speed. Freedom to maneuver is restricted. Drivers must be more Careful making lane changes. Minimal delays Speeds decline slightly and density increases. Freedom lc maneuver is noticeably limited. Minimal delays Vehicles are closely spaced. with little room to maneuver. Driver comfort is poor. Significant: delays Very congested traffic with traffic jams, especially in areas where vehicles have to merge. Considerable delays Source: Caltrans 2013. Figure 1-3 Levels of Service for Freeways The following sections summarize the current and future traffic congestion on I-15 and analyze the LOS on the I-15 mainline itself and weaving segments along I-15 under current (2013) and future traffic conditions. Both opening year (2020) and horizon year (2040) data is shown for future traffic conditions. The analysis looks at the morning (6-9 AM) and the afternoon peak periods (4-7 PM). The peak period is the period of the day during which the maximum amount of travel occurs. The peak hour is the hour within the peak period when the maximum demand occurs. In the study area, the morning peak hour is typically from 6:45 to 7:45 AM, and the afternoon peak hour is typically from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Peak -hour congestion on I-15 and other highways in the study area is a pressing concern. I-15 in many locations is already close to capacity. Spillover from these congested highways adds to congestion on the local roadway Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-11 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project networks, which during peak hours are operating at or near unsatisfactory LOS. This is evident in that the number of local intersections operating at unsatisfactory levels of service during the peak hours is projected to increase from one intersection under existing conditions to 18 of 22 intersections under year 2040 No Build AM/PM conditions (Caltrans 2014a). Peak -hour traffic estimates are used to approximate the amount of congestion experienced. For the morning and afternoon peak hours, the traffic volumes on I-15 were calculated. The traffic volume projections for 2040 were determined using the RCTC Transportation Analysis Model and SCAG's 2012- 2035 RTP/SCS interim year model. For the 2040 projections, all proposed projects in SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS were assumed to have been implemented except for improvements to I-15 covered under the I-15 Express Lanes Project. Current (2013) Level of Service Mainline Segments A mainline segment is a segment of freeway between adjacent on- and off -ramps. Under existing conditions (2013), all the freeway segments in the study area are currently operating at satisfactory levels of service (that is, LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Weaving Segments Between on- and off -ramps, vehicles traveling to and from the mainline must cross the path of vehicles traveling a different path along the mainline; these movements are referred to as weaving movements. Weaving segments require intense lane -changing maneuvers as drivers must access lanes appropriate to their desired exit. Traffic in a weaving segment is therefore subject to lane -changing in excess of that normally present on basic freeway mainline segments. Traffic operational problems often exist in weaving segments even when traffic demands are less than capacity because of the complexity of vehicle interactions, resulting in poor LOS and potential safety problems. When the traffic demands exceed the capacity at any of the mainlines and weaving and ramp junction areas, congestion occurs and affects the operation of the entire highway section. Existing (year 2013) AM and PM peak hour LOS for the project area weaving segments are summarized in Table 1-1. As Table 1-1 indicates, all freeway weaving segments are currently operating at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of the northbound Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to SR-91 connector and SR-91 westbound/I-15 nouhbound connector to the Magnolia Avenue off -ramp, which are both operating at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-12 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project Table 1-1. Existing (2013) Freeway Weaving Segment Peak Hour Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Segment # of Lanes Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS 1-15 northbound F. Magnolia Ave on -ramp to SR-91 off- ramp 4 - - F - - SR-91 eastbound/I-15 NB connector to Hidden Valley Pkwy off -ramp 4 54.0 28.0 C 55.8 24.4 C Hidden Valley Pkwy on -ramp to 2nd St off -ramp 5 23.5 24.7 C 54.3 22.5 C Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd on -ramp SR-60 eastbound connector 5 49.4 25.6 C 50.9 20.4 C 1-15 southbound SR-60 westbound/I-15 SB connector to Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd off - ramp 4 56.8 21.0 C 54.3 27.7 C 2nd St on -ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy off -ramp 5 54.9 20.8 C 54.2 23.3 C Hidden Valley Pkwy on -ramp to 1-15 southbound/SR-91 westbound connector 4 54.1 21.6 C 55.7 26.8 C SR-91 WB/1-15 SB connector to Magnolia Ave off -ramp 5 - - F - - F Ontario Ave on -ramp to El Cerrito Rd off -ramp 4 56.8 16.7 B 52.1 29.0 D El Cerrito Rd on -ramp to Cajalco Rd off -ramp 4 57.6 16.7 B 53.9 28.5 D Source: Caltrans 2014a. Shaded entries exceed acceptable levels of service. pc/mi/In = number of passenger cars per lane per mile. Projected population growth is an important factor in determining future travel demand. Substantial increases in population, housing, and employment, as projected in SCAG's 2012- 2035 RTP/SCS, result in greater demand for transportation facilities and services. Increased travel demand results in congestion on roadways if capacity does not keep up with the demand. I-15 between Cajalco Road and the Riverside/San Bernardino County Line has been identified as a corridor that needs additional capacity to address existing and projected demands from the growth and development that is taking place in communities along the I-15 corridor, and that is expected to continue (Caltrans 2007). Population growth projections developed for SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS indicate that population in Riverside County is expected to more than double between 2000 and 2035. Future (2020) Level -of -Service - No -Build Alternative Mainline Segments The projected No -Build (2020) condition assumes no roadway improvements on I-15, other than routine maintenance and any programmed minor projects, would be constructed. Traffic projections for 2020 were obtained from the RCTC Transportation Analysis Model and SCAG's Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-13 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project 2012-2035 RTP/SCS interim year model. Year 2020 AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the study area freeway segments are summarized in Table 1-2, Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service - No -Build Alternative. As shown in Table 1-2, under the 2020 No -Build condition, five freeway mainline segments (four northbound and one southbound) out of 58 segments identified in the traffic analysis are expected to reach LOS E by 2020 in the peak hour without any capacity improvements. These LOS indicate that as population increases in the study area, travel demand will grow. The corridor will experience increased congestion and longer commute times that would further degrade the capacity and traffic flow of the freeway mainline and local interchanges. Table 1-2. Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service - No -Build Alternative - Segments with LOS E AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Segment # of Lanes Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1-15 northbound 6th St on -ramp to Schleisman Rd off- ramp 3 61.5 30.8 D 57.5 37.0 E Schleisman Rd on -ramp to Limonite Ave off -ramp 3 59.8 33.5 D 57.8 36.6 E Limonite Ave on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd off -ramp 3 56.9 37.9 E 62.4 29.3 D Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd off -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd on -ramp 3 58.4 35.7 E 63.1 28.0 D 1-15 southbound Cajalco Rd on -ramp to Weirick Rd off -ramp 3 64.8 23.6 C 56.4 38.6 E Source: Caltrans 2014a. Shaded entries exceed acceptable levels of service. pc/mi/In = number of passenger cars per lane per mile. Weaving Segments In 2020 the number of weaving junctions operating at unsatisfactory LOS is projected to remain similar to 2013 existing conditions, where the northbound Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to SR-91 connector and SR-91 westbound/I-15 southbound connector to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. In addition, the SR-91 eastbound/I-15 northbound connector to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp (AM peak hour) is also projected to operate at LOS F. Future (2040) Level -of -Service - No -Build Alternative Year 2040 AM and PM peak hour LOS for the project area freeway segments that would exceed an acceptable LOS without the project are summarized in Table 1-3. While five freeway mainline segments (four northbound and one southbound) out of 58 segments are expected to reach LOS E by 2020 without any capacity improvements, over six times as many segments (35 segments: 18 northbound and 17 southbound) are forecast to be operating at LOS E or F under year 2040 No -Build conditions due to severe capacity constraints on the freeway mainline Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-14 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project (Caltrans 2014a). Although the deficient ramp junctions are spread throughout the study corridor, many of the ramp junctions between SR-60 and SR-91 would be operating at LOS E or F due to severe capacity constraints on both the freeway mainline and local arterials. Table 1-3. Year 2040 Freeway Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service - No -Build Alternative - Segments with LOS E or F Freeway Segment # of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1-15 northbound Cajalco Rd loop on -ramp to CETAP' on -ramp 3 52.1 45.1 F 55.2 40.4 E CETAP' on -ramp to El Cerrito Rd on -ramp 4 47.9 52.1 F 55.4 40.2 E El Cerrito Rd on -ramp to Ontario Ave off -ramp 3 - - F 22.9 136.4 F Ontario Ave off -ramp to lane addition 3 22.2 141.6 F 39.2 70.0 F Lane addition to Ontario Ave on- ramp 4 52.1 45.1 F 58.8 35.0 E Ontario Ave on -ramp to Magnolia Ave off -ramp 4 44.9 57.7 F 52.5 44.6 E Magnolia Ave off -ramp to Magnolia Ave EB on -ramp 3 34.1 84.3 F 35.6 79.9 F Magnolia Ave EB on -ramp to Magnolia Ave WB on -ramp 4 52.1 45.2 F 50.4 47.9 F Magnolia Ave WB on -ramp to SR-91 connector 4 See Weave Analysis Lane deletion to 2nd St on -ramp 3 58.2 35.9 E 48.1 51.8 F 2nd St on -ramp to 6th St off -ramp 3 56.0 39.3 E 40.6 66.7 F 6th St off -ramp to 6th St on -ramp 3 59.8 33.6 D 46.7 54.3 F 6th St on -ramp to Schleisman Rd off -ramp 3 54.9 40.9 E 37.2 75.4 F Schleisman Rd off -ramp to Schleisman Rd on -ramp 3 60.1 33.0 D 52.3 44.8 E Schleisman Rd on -ramp to Limonite Ave off -ramp 3 56.6 38.4 E 46.0 5.7 F Limonite Ave loop on -ramp to Limonite Ave on -ramp 3 58.0 36.2 E 58.0 36.3 E Limonite Ave on -ramp to Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd off -ramp 3 52.5 44.6 E 54.9 40.8 E Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd off -Ramp to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd on - ramp 3 57.1 37.6 E 59.5 33.9 D North of SR-60 EB connector 5 58.7 35.2 E 57.4 37.1 E Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1-15 Chapter 1. Proposed Project Freeway Segment # of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed (MPH) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS Speed (MPH) Density (pc/II-IWO LOS 1-15 southbound North of SR-60 connector 4 51.6 46.0 F 56.2 38.9 E Lane deletion to Limonite off -ramp 3 56.8 38.0 E 54.6 41.3 E Limonite Ave loop on -ramp to Limonite Ave on -ramp 3 56.9 39.0 E 58.1 36.1 E Limonite Ave on -ramp to Schleisman Rd off -ramp 3 48.9 50.4 F 52.4 44.7 E Schleisman Rd off -ramp to Schleisman Rd on -ramp 3 52.8 44.1 E 57.8 36.6 E Schleisman Rd on -ramp to 6th St off -ramp 3 43.4 60.6 F 48.4 51.3 F 6th St off -ramp to 6th St on -ramp 3 51.8 45.7 F 52.2 45.1 F 6th St on -ramp to 2nd St off -ramp 3 46.3 55.0 49.0 50.2 F 2nd St off -ramp to lane addition 3 51.7 45.8 F 52.5 44.6 E SR-91 EB loop connector to SR-91 WB/1-15 SB connector 4 59.9 33.4 D 58.2 35.9 E Magnolia Ave off -ramp to Magnolia Ave on -ramp 4 61.1 31.5 D 56.1 39.0 E Magnolia Ave on -ramp to Ontario Ave off -ramp 4 58.0 36.2 E 49.6 49.3 F Ontario Ave off -ramp to Ontario Ave on -ramp 4 63.2 27.8 D 55.5 39.9 E El Cerrito Rd off -ramp to lane addition 3 47.9 52.1 F 20.2 157.1 F Lane addition to CETAP' off -ramp 4 - >45 F - >45 F Lane addition to CETAP' off -ramp 4 61.8 30.3 D 51.3 46.4 F CETAP' off -ramp to Cajalco Rd off- ramp 3 57.6 36.9 E 58.4 35.6 E Cajalco Rd on -ramp to Weirick Rd off -ramp 3 63.7 26.8 D 56.7 38.2 E Source: Caltrans 2014a. Shaded entries exceed acceptable levels of service. pclmilln = number of passenger cars per lane per mile. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process. The specific CETAP project cited here is the new east - west transportation corridor between I-15 on the west and 1-215 on the east. Weaving Segments In 2040, all freeway weaving segments on I-15 within the project limits are projected to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of the following segments: • Northbound I-15 between the Magnolia Avenue northbound on -ramp and the SR-91 connector (AM and PM peak hours). • Northbound I-15 between the SR-91 eastbound connector and the Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp (AM peak hour). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1-16 Chapter 1. Proposed Project • Southbound I-15 between the SR-91 westbound connector and the Magnolia Avenue off - ramp (AM and PM peak hours). • Southbound I-15 between the Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp and the SR-91 connector (AM and PM peak hours). • Southbound I-15 between the Ontario Avenue on -ramp and the El Cerrito Road off -ramp (AM and PM peak hours). These five segments are projected to operate at LOS E or F during the specified peak hours. Future Level of Service Summary The following illustrates the expected degradation of the I-15 corridor operating conditions from existing to opening year and future design year if no capacity and operational improvements are made in the corridor: • While none of the freeway mainline segments are currently operating at unacceptable LOS (LOS E and F) during the AM and PM peak hours, it is projected that if no improvements are made 35 freeway mainline segments (18 northbound and 17 southbound) would operate at unacceptable LOS by 2040. • While currently only two freeway ramp junctions operate under unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions, it is projected that if no improvements are made, more than 60 percent of the ramp junctions would operate at an unacceptable LOS by 2040. • While currently only two freeway weaving sections operate under unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions, it is projected that if no improvements are made a majority (five of nine) of the weaving segments would operate at an unacceptable LOS by 2040 (Caltrans 2014a). As a result of the existing and projected congestion, by 2040 travel speeds are expected to decrease and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) to increase. Drivers attempting to enter and exit I-15 would experience delays. Congested conditions would spread onto the local roadway networks. Truck traffic on I-15 is expected to increase during non -peak hours. Extended peak -hour congestion conditions on I-15 would also be expected, resulting in increased traffic diversions onto the local arterial networks to avoid increasing freeway delays as well as increased truck density during non -peak hours. Longer durations of congested operations would be expected to interfere with goods movement, further erode travel time reliability, and affect safety in the vicinity of the project. 1.1.4.2 SAFETY Accident rates were obtained from the Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS), also known as "Table B," from Caltrans records for the most recently available three- year period (October 2009 through September 2012) for the I-15 freeway mainline (Caltrans 2009-2012). The actual accident rates for I-15 in the study area were compared to statewide averages to identify locations along the mainline where the actual accident rates exceeded the average accident rate. The total actual accident rate on I-15 within the project limits was less than the average rate for a similar type facility (see Table 1-4). During this time period there were 1,214 recorded accidents that resulted in 434 accidents involving injuries and nine Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-17 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project accidents involving fatalities (see Table 1-5). Over 50 percent of the accidents that did occur were rear -end accidents. Rear -end accidents on a freeway are generally related to congestion, speed differentials, and abrupt lane changes, which it is anticipated would be reduced with the improvements included under the project. Table 1-4. Actual and Average Accident Rates (Per Million Vehicle Miles) Location Actual Average Fatal Fatal + Injury Total Fatal Fatal + Injury Total PM 36.24 to 52.06 (NB) 0.003 0.18 0.51 0.005 0.30 0.94 PM 36.24 to 52.06 (SB) 0.004 0.14 0.38 0.005 0.30 0.94 Source: Caltrans TASAS October 2009—September 2012. Accident Rates expressed as number of accidents per million vehicle miles. Table 1-5. Mainline Accidents Location Total Number of Fatal Accidents Total Number of Fatal + Injury Accidents Total Number of Accidents Cajalco Road to El Cerrito Road (PM 36.80 — PM 37.82 ) 1 42 121 El Cerrito Road to Ontario Avenue (PM 37.82 — PM 38.69 ) 1 23 85 Ontario Avenue to Magnolia Avenue (PM 38.69 — PM 40.35) 1 66 216 Magnolia Avenue to Jct. SR-91 (PM 40.35 — PM 41.48) 1 46 143 Jct. SR-91 to Hidden Valley Parkway (PM 41.48 — PM 42.88) 0 20 61 Hidden Valley Parkway to Second Street (PM 42.88 — PM 43.64) 1 20 47 Second Street to Sixth Street (PM 43.6 4— PM 45.6) 0 39 122 Sixth Street to Limonite Avenue (PM 45.6— PM 48.26) 2 66 145 Limonite Avenue to Jct. SR-60 (PM 48.26— PM 51.40) 0 43 90 Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd to Jct. SR-60 (PM 50.30— PM 51.47) 2 69 184 Total 9 434 1,214 Source: Caltrans TASAS October 2009—September 2012. 1.1.5 Roadway Deficiencies Currently, the inside shoulders on I-15 within the project limits range from five to 10 feet. Standard inside shoulder width for facilities classified as freeway is 10 feet. Beyond the limited width paved shoulders on I-15, a depressed dirt median exists. In addition, temporary railing and guard rail systems currently separate northbound and southbound roadbeds. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1-18 Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.1.6 Social Demands or Economic Development Population growth projections developed for SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS indicate that the region is expected to grow at a rapid pace over the RTP planning period (2008-2035), with a projected 4.2 million new residents, 1.5 million new households, and 1.7 million new jobs being added by 2035. According to the SCAG growth forecast, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which comprise southern California's Inland Empire, are projected to grow faster and increase their share of regional jobs when compared to Los Angeles and Orange counties. As a result of regional population growth, the volume of traffic on I-15 is expected to increase. • Riverside County. U.S. Census (2000) and American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b) figures show Riverside County grew by 42 percent between 2000 and 2012, almost double the growth rate of any other county in the SCAG area. According to SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, Riverside County's population will continue its rapid growth through 2035 when its population is projected to be over 3.3 million, an estimated 51.6 percent growth from 2012. • San Bernardino County. According to the 2010 San Bernardino County Community Indicators Report, San Bernardino County is the fifth largest county in California in terms of population, at just over two million residents, and the largest county in the contiguous U.S. in terms of land area. Between 2000 and 2012, the population in the county grew by 19.4 percent. San Bernardino County's population is expected to be over 2.7 million people by 2035, a 34.7 percent change from 2012. • I-15 Corridor Cities. According to the U.S. Census (2000) and American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b), Corona grew by 23 percent between 2000 and 2012, and its 2012 population of just under 154,000 is expected to increase by almost 16 percent to 165,000 by 2035. Norco grew 12 percent between 2000 and 2012, and is expected to grow an additional seven percent by 2035. Eastvale and Jurupa Valley are expected to grow 16 percent and 29 percent, respectively, between 2012 and 2035. • Southern California. According to the U.S. Census (2000) and American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b) the six SCAG counties, which include Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, grew approximately 9.5 percent between 2000 and 2012. The six -county SCAG region is projected to grow to 22.1 million people by 2035, a 22.3-percent increase from 2010 (SCAG 2012, Chapter 8, page 216). Along with I-5, I-15 is the only other north -south interstate corridor that serves southern California. As the population in southern California continues to increase, traffic demand on the I-15 corridor (including between Cajalco Road and SR-60) is expected to increase as well. 1.1.7 Legislation The sections below discuss the state, federal, and design -build toll -related legislation that provides the authority for RCTC and Caltrans to build and operate express lanes within the I-15 corridor. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-19 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.1.7.1 STATE TOLLING AUTHORITY Assembly Bill (AB) 1467 (Nunez, 2006) established a statewide pilot program for tolled express lanes by authorizing four projects in California; two in Northern California and two in Southern California. This public partnership pilot program required a comprehensive application, a finding of eligibility by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and ratification of the CTC's finding by the State Legislature via statute. In December 2007, RCTC submitted an application under the public partnership pilot program. At its April 2008 meeting, the CTC found the project eligible for the pilot program. Later that year, AB 1954 (Jeffries, 2008) was signed into law, which ratified the CTC's April 2008 decision. The passage of AB 1954 provided RCTC the authority to build and operate two tolled express lanes in each direction within the I-15 corridor. 1.1.7.2 FEDERAL TOLLING AUTHORITY In March 2008, RCTC submitted an expression of interest to FHWA as the first step in obtaining federal tolling authority for I-15. Based on the expression of interest, FHWA advised RCTC that the I-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would best fit under FHWA's Value Pricing Pilot Program, a program to support the development, operation, and evaluation of pilot tests of innovative road and parking pricing projects that achieve significant and lasting reductions in highway congestion (FHWA 2014). Interested public agencies would be eligible to apply for grants under the Value Pricing Pilot Program authorized by Section 1604(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU). In July of 2008, RCTC submitted an application for federal tolling authority to FHWA and in July 2009 entered into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans and FHWA adding the I-15 CIP project to the Value Pricing Pilot Program authority Caltrans received from FHWA (FHWA/Caltrans/ROTC 2009). This agreement provided RCTC the federal authority to build, operate, and maintain two tolled express lanes in each direction on the I-15 corridor in Riverside County. While the requirement for tolling agreements was eliminated in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, the Value Pricing Pilot Program agreements continue to remain in force (FHWA 2012). RCTC will build, operate, and maintain tolled express lanes on I-15 within Riverside County in accordance with all applicable requirements. Under the agreement, up to two lanes in each direction on I-15 may be tolled; toll revenues are to be used for constructing, operating, and maintaining the I-15 tolled express lanes, and for other projects eligible for assistance under the Federal -Aid Highways Code (23 United States Code); toll rates charged will be variable; and use of toll revenues is subject to audit. RCTC is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the express lanes. As stated in the RCTC/Caltrans/FHWA cooperative agreement, the project "will utilize congestion pricing and enhanced technologies that are similar to those currently operating on existing toll facilities in Orange and San Diego counties, presenting the opportunity to create a regionally integrated and connected toll system" (FHWA/Caltrans/RCTC 2009). 1.1.7.3 DESIGN -BUILD AUTHORITY The I-15 Express Lanes Project is proposed to be delivered using a design -build method. Under this method RCTC would enter into one contract with a company or joint venture to both design and construct the project. This approach saves considerable time as it allows overlap of design and construction activities. Design -build is used frequently in the U.S. for major highway projects as an alternative to the traditional design, bid, and build approach and has proven to Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-20 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project result in lower costs for delivery of the project and less claims during construction. RCTC's authority for use of this delivery method comes from AB 401 (Daly), which was signed into law on October 5, 2013. The new law authorizes Caltrans and regional transportation agencies to undertake improvements on highways and expressways using design -build procurement to design and construct projects on or adjacent to the state highway system, including related non - highway portions of the project, based on either best value or lowest responsible bid. 1.1.8 Modal Relationships and System Linkages 1.1.8.1 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM LINKAGE I-15 is a major truck/passenger route that begins at its junction with I-5 in San Diego, approximately 10 miles north of the United States/Mexico Border, and ends at the United States/Canada Border. I-15 is functionally classified at the federal level as a Rural/Urban Principal Arterial and is part of the Freeway and Expressway System, the Single Interstate Routing System, the National Highway System, and the Strategic Highway Corridor Network of National Defense. I-15 serves as both the primary North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-related "Can-A-Mex" Corridor between Canada and Mexico via the Mountain West, as well as a link to the main east -west freight routes (SR-60/Interstate 10 [I-10], Interstate 40 [I-40], Interstate 70 [I-70], and Interstate 80 [I-80]) that connect southern California with the Midwest and East Coast. Furthermore, I-15 has been identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as one of the six "Corridors of the Future" within the United States that are vital to the long-term health and stability of our national economy. I-15 is strategically located and is a vital interstate goods -movement corridor that links southern California to the Inland Empire, Las Vegas, the Rocky Mountain States, and Canada. It is a primary link between major economic centers and geographic regions and is classified as a "High Emphasis" and "Gateway" route in the Interregional Road System (IRKS). I-15 is a major truck route and is included in the National Network for Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) for oversize trucks. Its main use is interstate/interregional movement of people and goods. I-15 is also part of the Intermodal Corridors of Economic Significance (ICES) system of routes, which are significant transportation arteries that provide access to major sea or waterway ports, nationwide railway systems, airports, and interstate and intrastate highway systems, thereby serving as intermodal corridors of economic significance (State of California 2005). Weekend and holiday recreational traffic on the route is exceptionally high since it serves as a connection to Las Vegas and to the Colorado River area via I-40. 1.1.8.2 REGIONAL SYSTEM LINKAGE The I-15 corridor provides an essential transportation and economic link for both Riverside and San Bernardino counties and the State of California. The District 8 portion of I-15 starts at the Riverside/San Diego County Line and ends at the Nevada State Line. The total length of I-15 in District 8 is 239 miles, approximately 52 miles of which are within Riverside County (that is, from the Riverside/San Diego County Line to the SR-60 Junction). The route generally varies from four to eight lanes. 1-15 is a major freeway linking to I-10, I-40, Interstate 210 (I-210), SR- 60, SR-91, State Route 58 (SR-58), and US-395. It also connects with State Route 18 (SR-18), State Route 138 (SR-138), SR-74, State Route 66 (SR-66), and State Route 79 (SR-79). I-15 within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties currently has no HOV lanes. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-21 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.1.8.3 LOCAL SYSTEM LINKAGE I-15 is also used for local, cross-town access, and is used as an additional route to connect the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley. I-15 provides access to major airports in San Bernardino County and Orange County. The nearest commercial airports to the project site are Ontario International Airport (ONT), located about two miles northwest of the northern project limits, and San Bernardino International Airport (SBD), located about 18 miles northeast of the site, both of which are in San Bernardino County. These airports provide both cargo services and commuter air travel services. John Wayne Airport, located in Orange County in the City of Santa Ana, is about 30 miles southwest. This airport is also a commercial airport, with both cargo and commuter air travel services. Several smaller airports also serve Riverside County. 1.1.8.4 MODAL RELATIONSHIPS As discussed previously, I-15 is identified as part of the ICES system of routes, which are primary transportation arteries that provide access to major sea or waterway ports, nationwide railway systems, airports, and interstate and intrastate highway systems. Rail cargo yards surrounding the project area include the Union Pacific (UP) Mira Loma Rail Yard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) San Bernardino Rail Yard, located approximately two miles to the northeast and approximately 16 miles northeast of the project area, respectively. The project is approximately 40 miles from the Port of Long Beach, 45 miles from the Port of Los Angeles, and approximately 70 miles from the Port of San Diego. After docking, goods are transported by truck if the distance is less than 500 miles or by train for longer distances. According to the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), 90 percent of port traffic to and from points outside the region crosses the Inland Empire (SANBAG 2007). This freight traffic, which is already heavy, is projected to nearly triple in the next 20 years because of tremendous growth in international trade through the ports (SANBAG 2007). There are no plans at this time to add or modify transit facilities within the project limits as a component of the project. However, improvements to the mainline capacity will provide transit benefits by potentially reducing the travel time of any transit route that is programmed or has future plans to use this portion of the I-15 mainline. Public transit in Riverside County is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). RTA offers 361oca1 fixed -route services that connect local communities and eight CommuterLink express bus routes for long-distance commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster and Sprinter stations, business parks, shopping malls, and regional transit facilities. Its Route 3 generally parallels I-15 through the project area, along Hamner Lane west of I-15, and provides service between Corona, Norco, and Eastvale (Riverside Transit Agency 2014). RTA also provides service to several park -and -ride facilities. Additionally, Greyhound Lines, Inc. provides intercity bus services along I-15 within the project alignment. 1.1.8.5 EXPRESS LANE NETWORK SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS identifies 19 express lane segments that make up the SCAG express lane network. The network is expected to be operational by 2035. The express lanes project on I-15 is listed as a segment of SCAG's express lane network. The I-15 Express Lanes Project will provide another connection to other express lane network segments adjacent to the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-22 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project project, including the SR-91 CIP currently under construction in Riverside County that connects to the existing SR-91 express lanes in Orange County. The project will also connect to the planned I-15 Corridor Express Lanes Project in San Bernardino County. The project, overall, will provide a more efficient connection for travelers commuting to larger populated areas and highly concentrated areas of commerce located in Orange and Los Angeles counties as well as destinations in San Bernardino County. 1.1.9 Air Quality Improvements With respect to mobile -source air pollutant emissions, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) developed EMFAC2011 emissions factor curves, which demonstrate that in general, the highest levels of grams per mile emissions occur at stop -and -go speeds (0-25 miles per hour) and speeds over 55 miles per hour, with the highest emissions rates occurring from 0-25 miles per hour. To the extent that a project relieves congestion by enhancing operations and improving travel times in high congestion travel corridors, mobile -source air pollutant emissions may be reduced. 1.1.10 Independent Utility and Logical Termini Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 771.111 [f]) require that the action evaluated: • Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope. • Have independent utility or independent significance (be usable and require a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made). • Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. Logical termini should encompass an entire project. Cutting a larger project into smaller projects may be considered "improper segmentation." A project must have independent utility; that is, a project must be able to function on its own, without further improvements. This Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) assesses operational conditions on I-15 between PM 36.8 and PM 51.4, the roadway improvement limits. This area covers the portions of I-15 most affected by the projected population and traffic growth along the I-15 corridor in Riverside County. The 14.6 mile I-15 project area begins at Cajalco Road in the City of Corona in Riverside County and terminates at the I-15/State Route 60 (SR-60) Interchange near the Riverside/San Bernardino County Line. Traffic volumes decrease south of Cajalco Road and therefore, this serves as a logical point from a traffic perspective to terminate the project. In addition, Cajalco serves as a major east -west arterial thus making this a logical southern project terminus The north end of the project is at SR-60, a logical termination as this is a major regional facility to regional facility interchange. The traffic volumes on I-15 north of SR-60 range from 29 to 56 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-23 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project percent higher than volumes south of SR-60 in the 2040 no -build scenario. In the 2040 build scenario the range is 40.7 to 63.5 percent more traffic north of SR-60 than south. In addition, large percentages of traffic enter and exit the facility at the I-15/SR-60 interchange. Under the 2040 no -build scenario, in the southbound direction, about 28 percent of vehicles enter I-15 from SR-60 during the AM peak and 31 percent enter during the PM peak. In the northbound direction under the 2040 no -build scenario the corresponding percentage of traffic exiting the I-15 for SR- 60 are 16 percent in the AM peak and 12 percent in the PM peak (Caltrans 2014a). The changes in composition of traffic are even greater on I-15 north of SR-60. Under the 2040 no -build scenario, during the AM peak, over 54 percent of vehicles southbound on I-15 exit at SR-60; in the PM peak, over 46 percent of the southbound I-15 traffic exits at SR-60. In the northbound direction almost 45 percent of the traffic on I-15 north of SR-60 enters from SR-60 in the AM peak and 47 percent enters from SR-60 in the PM peak (see Table 1-6) Table 1-6. Traffic Volume Split at SR-60 Percentage of southbound 1-15 traffic that exits at SR 60 Percentage of southbound traffic on 1-15 that entered at SR 60 Percentage of northbound 1-15 traffic that exits at SR 60 Percentage of northbound traffic on 1-15 that entered at SR 60 Year 2040 No -Build Traffic AM Peak 54% 28% 16% 45% PM Peak 46% 31 % 12% 47% Source: Caltrans 2014a. Southbound LOS differences north and south of the I-15/SR-60 Interchange further reflect the changes in traffic composition north and south of the interchange. In the 2013 baseline year, southbound traffic north of the interchange in both the AM and PM peaks is at LOS D; south of the interchange LOS is C. Under the 2040 no -build scenario, southbound AM peak LOS north of the interchange is F; south of the interchange, LOS is D. In the PM peak, southbound LOS north of the interchange is E; south of the interchange LOS is D (Caltrans 2014a). The makeup of traffic on I-15 north and south of SR-60 is different enough to justify a logical northern terminus of the I-15 project at SR-60. The project is of sufficient length, and the project termini are logically placed to allow environmental issues to be addressed on a broad scope. The project would result in improvements to the current traffic conditions along the I-15 corridor without any additional transportation improvements being made in the area. As such, the project is considered to have independent utility. Furthermore, the project would not restrict considerations of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. 1.2 Project Description This section describes the proposed action and the project alternatives that were developed to meet the identified purpose and need of the project, while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. The alternatives are the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) and the No -Build Alternative. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-24 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project The I-15 Express Lanes Project stretches approximately 14.6 miles in length traversing the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County. These improvements are intended to address existing and projected deficiencies in capacity and operations within the project limits. As proposed, the project would construct one to two tolled express lanes on I-15 from Cajalco Road to SR-60. The primary purpose of the project is to address current and future (2040) travel demand and improve congested traffic operations on the I-15 corridor between Cajalco Road (PM 36.8) and the I-15/SR-60 Interchange (PM 51.4) just south of the San Bernardino County line. 1.3 Alternatives 1.3.1 No -Build (No -Action) Alternative Under the No -Build (No -Action) Alternative the I-15 Express Lanes would not be constructed. This alternative does not meet the project purpose and need; however, it would not preclude the construction of future improvements or general maintenance activities. Even without construction of the I-15 Express Lanes Project, limited improvements on I-15 associated with the approved SR-91 CIP would be constructed. Describing and analyzing a No -Build (No -Action) Alternative helps decision -makers and the public compare the impacts of approving the project with the consequences of not approving the project. 1.3.2 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) includes construction of one or two tolled express lanes in each direction on I-15 in Riverside County between PM 36.8 and PM 51.4. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would be constructed within the existing right of way. Sign improvements would also be made to inform and guide users of the new tolled express lanes. Advanced signage is required to be posted at a minimum of two miles prior to the start of the tolled express lanes. The project limits for the signage extend from PM 34.7 in Riverside County to PM 1.3 in San Bernardino County. Specifically, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would: • Provide one tolled express lane in each direction from Cajalco Road to Hidden Valley Parkway, a distance of 7.1 miles. o From Cajalco Road to Ontario Avenue, the new lanes would be constructed in the unpaved median. o From Ontario Avenue to Magnolia Avenue, the new lanes would be created by restriping the existing paved median. o From Magnolia Avenue to East 6th Street (Corona) the new lanes would be developed by widening to the outside (still within existing right of way) and restriping. Because the SR-91 project will construct some tolled express lane improvements along I-15 before I- 15 Express Lanes Project construction, once the I-15 project is completed, there would be two tolled express lanes in each direction on I-15 extending from Ontario Avenue to East 6th Street. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-25 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project o From East 6th Street to Hidden Valley Parkway (Norco), the median would be paved to create one new tolled express lane in each direction. • Provide two tolled express lanes in each direction from Hidden Valley Parkway northbound and Second Street southbound (Norco) to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road (Eastvale/Jurupa Valley) by paving the existing unpaved median. • Construct one tolled express lane in each direction from Cantu Galleano Ranch Road (Eastvale/Jurupa Valley) to SR-60 by paving the unpaved median with isolated outside widening at Riverside Avenue to maintain lane balance for the SR-60 WB loop connector. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not add any new connections or ramps. 1.3.2.1 ADDITIONAL PROJECT FEATURES In addition to the features described above, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) includes additional project components such as retaining walls, storm water runoff treatment devices, and bridge widening to accommodate the new tolled Express Lanes. Table 1-7 shows a list of the bridge widening improvements that are a component of the project. The piers supporting the Santa Ana River Bridge structure would need to be widened to support the widened bridge structure. Dewatering may be necessary for construction of the pier additions. Temporary construction easements may be required for construction access to the Santa Ana River. Table 1-7. Proposed Bridge Improvements Existing Bridge Proposed Improvement El Cerrito undercrossing (UC) Closing the middle Temescal Wash Outside widening on both sides East 6th Street undercrossing Outside widening both sides East Corona overhead (OH) railroad (RR) Outside widening both sides Route 15/91 separation Closing the middle and widen outside on northbound side Parkridge undercrossing Closing the middle Corona undercrossing Closing the middle 2nd Street undercrossing Closing the middle 3rd Street undercrossing Closing the middle Santa Ana River Closing the middle Riverside undercrossing Closing the middle and outside widening on the northbound side A number of utility lines (water, sewer, gas, and communications) cross I-15 in the project area. While none are expected to require relocation outside of the project area, some may require relocation within the same general area and within the identified limits of disturbance following utility providers' requirements. Others may require minor adjustment in location or protection during project construction (see Section 2.1.6 for additional information). No new or revised access to I-15 will be provided as part of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), no borrow or fill sites are anticipated to be required, and all planned construction staging areas are within existing right of way. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is anticipated to be constructed within the existing Caltrans right of way. The layouts and typical cross section of the proposed freeway are illustrated in Figures 1-4 and Figure 1-5, respectively. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1-26 Chapter 1. Proposed Project Locations of noise barriers designed as part of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP), which may be constructed at the same time as construction of the I-15 Express Lanes Project, are shown on the project layout maps in Figure 1-4, along with stormwater treatment devices and other features. 1.3.2.2 STAGE CONSTRUCTION To confirm that existing traffic lanes can be maintained through the construction period of the I- 15 Express Lanes Project, a detailed construction staging plan will be created during final design. A general concept of the three construction stages is provided below. As additional information becomes available during final design and progress of adjacent projects becomes clearer, more detailed stage construction plans would be developed. Stage 1 During Stage 1, the travel lanes would generally be shifted to the right (outside) to maintain the existing lanes of traffic. This would allow the contractor to build the inside median where needed. Stage 1 would allow the median to be fully paved for the overall limits of the project. While the traffic is shifted toward the outside, the bridge widening for the new lanes in the median would be constructed. No long-term closures or detours for this stage of the project are anticipated. During this stage, there would be no inside shoulder and the traffic would be separated from the construction zone by temporary concrete barriers to create a defined working zone. Construction access openings would be provided periodically in the temporary barrier as defined by the contractor to facilitate construction vehicle access to/from the existing I-15 lanes. Stage 2 During Stage 2, the travel lanes would generally be shifted to the left (inside) to accommodate construction on the outside of the existing roadway. This work includes but is not limited to pavement widening, drainage inlets, and construction of stormwater treatment devices. Stage 3 Stage 3 would include final bridge widening, walls, and supplemental drainage structures and stormwater treatment. Work required to complete construction of gore points for the ramp connections affected by outside widening would also be completed. In addition, final sign panels would be installed and express lane testing would occur. To complete the stage, the freeway would be re -striped into its final configuration and the operation of all express lane features would commence. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-27 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-28 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Miles ` Source: ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 1-4 Build Alternative Index Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-30 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 3\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 283110060 28311006 283110016 \ 283110017 283410047 , 1 ' 1 Canyon RAO' 283320015� 283320018 283320019 283320020' Legend Potential Electrical Conduit Location O Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline — - Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 283150042 283150026 283110019 283150035 283150037 283150046 Figure 1-4 Sheet 1 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-32 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 283423002i< Sydney Blue Legend Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall ®— Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline — - Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 283110044 283100056 1 - � r f U f Y 1S: y j .. • • — rct s+w Figure 1-4 Sheet 2 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-34 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIo1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 �282'140020 111 1 , Bedford Motor Way Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls x SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall H— Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping m= Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement (.711 Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area L i Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Bridge Expansion Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 282140021 Dui• S.�c_. 611. Y . PP" 283423001 283440010 oil 283440009 , 283440018 Figure 1-4 Sheet 3 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-36 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 'roiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/18/2015 19402 d c 2 Y 282080014 282080013 Nob Hill Rd 282100015 282080012 282100018 282100018 :J 82100011v Driveway 279450020 282100002 282100018 282100018 %.. Electrical Service Connection to Existing Service Drop Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Locati Q Anticipated Sign Location — Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall �— Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping on Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 282140029 282111002 r .282111s004, ' 28212/002 282121007 }� 282121008 2-mile advance sign location (1876++00) 8212. 11009 282121006 ,• 282140020 Foster Figure 1-4 Sheet 4 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-38 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 279240009 Glen Rd 4 14111t, 4•.. 282050016 2820500154 f2 " 50014 282070015 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping m= Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing Edge Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement (.711 — - Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Wall Existing 1-15 MI State Right -of -Way Pavement Area Parcel Boundary Bridge Expansion 1 LOD Potential Staging Area 0 50 100 n Proposed Water N Quality BMP Feet Location 200 N Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 279460052 1 `279460037 279460051 27945002'0. Figure 1-4 Sheet 5 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-40 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Proiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EA\Fia1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date 3/8/2016 19316 .-64 :s. r 279140011 L rr • .279140013 279190034 + s �cs. 279231022 � . ParkingLot 279231046 Cajalco 279240009 279231023 t 279231043 .I 2 • v 2792' ■ 1 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 L,�] Proposed Water ■ Quality BMP Location Li 50 — - Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) A 1-mile advance signage location (1932+00) 279231039 27923.1.038 279240001 Conduit to Potential Electrical Service Drop #9231031 0 G Figure 1-4 Sheet 6 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-42 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project r , f 79121005 `279121006 .w w " w w w 279132008 i 279132007 w w 279132006 279132005 279133007 279133008 279i133009 279132004 27917,0009 2791 279122003 27913400 w 279133003 279133005 Boyd Ave 279170005 279281009 27y9282010. 27932200 279322006 279321009 279321010 ��79321011 27.9321008 27�011�,, .� 01bX 7 279321006 279321005 279321004- 279322028 -1�111 279170016 Georgetown 279282015 d 279322011 �279322034 Y'3+ 279322013,. 27,9322024 279322027 27932 029 610" - 279322030 s 279322025 279322015 279322024 279322031-- _ 279322032 s y� 279323002 279322033 /27932300 27c9303008 279123001 279134004 27928/010 1 276180023 279322017 , '279322018 V 276322023 ,_27930�00,1 279322019 w • 2793220 1P 279322022 Legend — Potential Electrical Conduit Location C Environmentally Sensitive m Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall H— Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion , Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location O Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 279180013 • 279180021 .279180027 279180014 279180015 279180015 279180012 279180025 , 279180023 279180023' 279140007 279180018 s� — 279180015 279140013 Project Limits (Lane Improvement Limits) South: RIV-15 PM 36.8 2791800 w 279180024 279190034 279231020 279231021 279231046 279240009 Figure 1-4 Sheet 7 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-44 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 277353015 2773530 27�73530 277210002 2:17353020 277220006 27725000 � 27722�7- 277290023 277240032 }'. a •14s 277240038 S 7 '�27240037 277290004 { - 277240029 277240043 277240035 4 277290005 277240015 27$7r29 025 w• 277290026 279101015 279090002 277240016 277240006 277240030 277240050 277240010 277240023 277240051 27,7240�047 • 277240013 277240017 79101015 279101019 279101014 279101013 279101013 279101012 .•279101025 279101024 279101021 279101020 279101019 279101016 279101022 279101023 279101005 279101018 279101009 r 2791/1016 279111017 279111018 279111019 279111020 v 2772400184 279102022 _279102018 279102034 279102035 279102011 279.102026 '279102027 4„ 279102029 279102015 279102030 277240019 i 279102001 279162002 279102024 279102023 279102031. . i 279102036 279102037 279102039 279102038 279111006 27911,1011 • 279111015 2791,11021 279111029 .101 279111028 279111013 279111026 2'79111Th r '279112001 1.279112002 279112004 r 2791.12005 279112019 279112012 279112011 2791.12013 279112014 279'112022 279T��23 277210003 277240021 277240020 .O „ "'Ii .27i9,1030,14 .279103019 279103020 279103016-: 279103026 -279103027 279103018' 279103023 279103024, 279103025 -279113001 279113002 279113003 279113022 '-279113021 J • 279113024 L 1 VIM" ' Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier m m Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping a>, Environmentally Sensitive - Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) ,277202001� 27� 7201003 5 '277201002 �tr Y 277201001, '''s27723000' •, 277,230002 `1' 277240036 '.279103001 279103015 279103004 • 279103022 279103028 279103029 279103006 •279103007 279103008 279113023 279113013 279113025 2791130.10 279104024 279'104012 Y • '7 279104005 4279104004 Bobbitt 279114001 279114002 277201011 277201004 277-201005 1! µ . �7201010 • , V 27,7 � 0006 27.9104007 14 279104017 .279104018 S. 279104(119 279104020. 277202011 277202011 277202016 �277202013 4277202015 • 4� )7 3 )8 )9 277191010� 277191009 i 277202014r • 4. I 1 277191008 277201006" 277201007 • r . 277201008 .y 277230007 277230008 277230009 279104016 ,'279104026 279104025 27:6114018 279:114019 279114012 • 279114011 r 279114016 2791,14017 279114006 279'114009 2791140/4 c` 279124001 27,9124004 _ 279131011 •279131016 279131004 •279131005 277181016 277181017 279125003 *� !279125001 279125002 279124006 279124007 a • 279131012 279131009 27,9131019 279131020 279131018 279131014 279131007 277191007. ."444, . 277181021. 279125004 279132001 279t132002 Sr 2791322203 277191011 277191012 • r 277191013 I 277191 27719.1001 18 004 277181003 ! 277181013 r 277181010 277181011 279121005 27121006. 279132008 279132007 279132006 27.9.133 .007 279132005 III 279132004- 27.9133�008 Figure 1-4 Sheet 8 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-46 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project ��120200005 120270021 120270019 120290002 =T 1 120270010 I 120290017 f. 120270015 (12029001 i 120290004 " 1 120290012 112029000/ 120270014 120290010 s' 12029 009 120290008 " 41 ,.v. 120290(207 120290006 277330006 4 277330007 277341001 " 277341002 NI".277341003 277341004 277341005 3 " 277341006 II i `-277 351001' 277351002 17051003 V77353001 27L7353002 F 277353003 2772'80010 t .or ' 277330001 277330002 *" 277330005 277342005 ��. 277342002 IfIr 277342001 277352001 277330003 277342007 v 27-342011 27��2012 277352003 277352012 27735+006 ��s 277353004" 277250014 277352004 2717353007 _] I277.-353008 t _I I F.. " I I I I I 277330013 " 277ANL 334)12 f-120280009 Jam': 4N2 301001 " 120280010 .�� eN .e 27733/)011 277342008 e1177342014 ��- r^ 277342018 27,7352005 F 277352010 27,7250015 277 z' 2773010( ow".1 277301007 277330009 277330008i' 277342015 A 2,777342017 411431F 277342016 Sarsaparilla Dr 2773520091 Calico Cir 277353009 ;LA " 27,7352008 277353010 AySNOW F.,o. ,.,.. lif 27011 1 Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier m Existing Noise Wall m SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier 4 277343005 277250005 " 277343004 Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 277343003 77343001 277353018 ,277353017 " 2773530016 -277353015 r. 277353014 277353013. 277353020 111, ^l / 277303006 AO . 1 " 277281100111 !IF Environmentally Sensitive  Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area � Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 [;':,_:I Proposed Water Quality BMP Location /�� " wo 277303002 a t 277303007 ,. 277303008 77-313006 277303003 277303004 277312023r. y 277313005 277210001 - y7 277210002 277220005 277220006 L�� 50 1 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) t2772001 277312002" 277312010 277312011�� 277312020 ' 2773t Y 1o~, 20 Creek v 277311005 )3 2 2773120.14- 277312013 277312012 277313001 . 277210003 277312017 "s 3.114l 2773120184 277321002 277321001 277?10�� 008 Figure 1-4 Sheet 9 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-48 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project pir MIel69i=Mai:1.1:1TiTi Yc MIT:1l17Frr.MiMWAiZIM 3mr AfiIITiTAITIS!r MMPiAIkZOMDID 278230069 la 1114A1 it 107330015 107330016 278060034 107330017. 27806003: A. • �. 12�0540016 s.• i 205 0008 f � •f 1120190011 E' nr 7. f�.�1 ■ 12019001077. �` . #1 Fi 4 120200001. 120200003 w 120190002 •� 120200005 • CI . 120280002 27.8230017 _ Mt, 1 1 1 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 4:� � Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing Edge Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location n L i 50 Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 200 N A • 77020020 120280015 r •1,20280010 a 411' 11 120280011_- _. r 278060022 rt 278060021 27806002 2780600.19, •278060018 'i278060017 278060016 278,060015 120280005 278060014 .#04.. . 120280006 , 120280007 -120280008 120280009 c 2782300w3 2780600/3 V 278230056 Yr i 278230057 278230058 Smerber Rd -278220010 ei 278220009 278220008 ,et 278220007 !7 278220024 278220034 278220040 NM _ �. +!ti q ■ 7 .a 278220942Irti 277020004 277020012 i # 277301002 y277301003' 277301008 277301009 278220004 278220038 11, 278220012 27727.1002 77271001 27/7271021 400 277271022 277271023 .� ' 277271024ur7. 277271025 'tea-ac- 277281001 - 27727200/ j i■ 277272010 1 I 7282001. Figure 1-4 Sheet 10 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-50 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 141M=.11:11VOIMMIZIC:ffsIslacirMilaTiMUSSTRINIVBMSEWM:1111NWAMT.TZA=:19TIMPJPAIKOMUM V 4 107170028 1 •r: 107170056 • 2L7824:1010-r----1 � f � 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 , 1r' -107170045 107170044 107170046 107360006 �107360005 107360004 107360002 0_07360003 107360001 107.36000 107360009 - 1 107170047 107170042 107360008 107.170.059 4111-.J rw.. 07i1 0040 Wolk u1. 111111iNg VI I. 11111111n 1-I� 07.1.80021 0718003 7"; -111 107330015 107170048 • f 107170049 107117005 107170055 107170057 107180047 107180043 78040039 278230069 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier � Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping r� arso" A 278241002 27.82410134 278241014• 278020023 = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing E Temporary Construction of Pavem Easement — - Existing D Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Existing 1-15 1-1State Righ Pavement Area Parcel Boundary Bridge Expansion 1 LOD Potential Staging Area 0 50 100 inn Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 278242006 `-.278242007 • •• 278020015 278020022 • 278020016 • 278020017 278242008 Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Wall dge ent rainage t -of -Way 200 N 278242009 27.8020024 r 278020014' 278020013 i i78030030 278030029 x / 278030026 278030009 II II 1 �278030012 278030008 278030016 1 278030011� 278030016 27803008 278030 1 278020012 278020027 278020007 278020008 278020031 278020032 2780200011 278030002 A 278030003 4 278030028 1 278030017 '91'' / A / r ‘ \ "400- Ae • J 278230012 278230020'' �• � 278230016 278230014 278230.015 278230024 •w • 782300.19 4• 27,8230021-278230022 Figure 1-4 Sheet 11 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-52 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project r l A `* i t. t Pr . ° E �`1 .\>1 1 j t `ft.; 107,080051 107160039 F E California 107160079 107160056 .hi 107160080 107160076 Olympic F07170002 "10+16. U019 -107080050 N 10 080 042 107160077 t 107160045 1 111.1 107� _ �170045 1 107170044 • - 9.10W 107.1 1 Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Locati Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall ®— Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping on Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 1 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 107160078 dhipo 7,0046 107080006 107170028,N 1071770048 '107179049 j 107080005 10720 t1 10720/007 • 16720/004 1 • ' 4 107080034 107201021 110720 0'10 107201020 10720,1019 40. 107201011 107201018 ' 107201012,. Is lIt 1 � 2782410.09 107201015_ 10720/002 107202003 107202002 1�7201`' 107202010, 278241012 278242001 �278241011 2782411010 278242002 Figure 1-4 Sheet 12 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-54 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 11;1290037 111290039 11,1290021 111290022 111290023 111300051 111290024 'Lr.Ji r 111300013 1380005 -0{ r� ,10pi 111380004 1.1380008 r• 111380003 111380009 r' ? Moojeska i 111390.0.06 111390011 111390010 4 r7 . 111390013 11111. 111290080 107090020 107090019 ,, 107090018 ~ 1�9002 107090029 11.129006 e 111290059 r„ , C11129:0069701'f509Q0:0J 1,7 Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier m Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline — - Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 107090022 r t.1 6 �' 4 07090023 :111300038'• �� 111300054 1 107090024 I 1 107090016 111300050 56 111300049 111300031 107080051 fr Y Figure 1-4 Sheet 13 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-56 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project .1 I r• • A A rl :1, IL I I I Mr, /,,1-", 115060024 I • 115600006 5070082 115050033 115070086 15600005 115080013 115080033 15080012 11508004 115080042 111280001 11/280017 115080035 • 6 507000 115080030 •• 111290035; I Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location — Proposed Edge of Pavement -1 Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall m m SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing Edge %/, Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement — Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Wall Existing 1-15 State Right -of -Way Pavement Area Parcel Boundary L 7 LOD Potential Staging Area 0 50 100 n [,'I Proposed Water Quality BMP Feet Location ® Bridge Expansion 0 200 N Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) II 141 11'LJ V VYVI; lA- 111290039 ,1Mh' III I ZUUOby i 115070096 T r 115050028 115050019 Quarry st 115070095 111290055 11129_0064, 1/5590018 115590016 tr 115670033` 115670034 115200058 1/5200047 [11411 (.40 115200044 '{ i!1"1 Ur; ■ 115200043 115200042 5200003 115090003 290054 111290034 11129005 •Tr, -11129006 r 1 Figure 1-4 Sheet 14 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-58 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project AP WHIM . 119300079, 11930000080 119300021 115060013 117282003 82006 117282002 117282004 1117282005 115660004 5050030 7270022 117,290042 117290008 117290007 117290019 7290041 117290011 117290009 117290010 117290012 117290045 117290021 1172-90020 117290024 117290023 Quarry 117290043 117290014 r7290025 1531003/ 1150500.14 117r290016 117290015 11729001-7 117290046 117290028 117.29002 11-7290026 117310001 117290030 1-7290029 115310034 T32 0341. 117290032 11117290034 _. 117290033 115040012 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement -- Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing Existing Edge Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Wall Existing 1-15 Q State Right -of -Way Pavement Area Parcel Boundary ® Bridge Expansion Li LOD 50 100 200 N [;': n Proposed Water A Quality BMP Feet Location Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 115310024 115060046 115060026 115060047 117290035 117290037 117290038 # 117290636 * 117.331004'1 1 73310 7 -'1Sl 17331014 Potential Staging Area 0 5050014 115060024 115060035 17.33,1001 115070023 '115070041 115050033 115070001 11507096kt V115070083 '115600007 Figure 1-4 Sheet 15 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-60 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Proiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATia1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 1 15040012 40 1 153420'19 15342021 �. s115342007 5342025 •,� 115342027 115050034 115050033 115060024 5342006 115070086 a 1150500, 11507000 jink;:_2111k115117.1005 - • J115, 7r20,18 Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier m Existing Noise Wall m SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Ll 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) • 115351009 1153510 08 115.351007 115351006 w ` . 115351005 •;�• f •1`5351`4 115172003 115351003 - =. 115172002 ;I A 115351002. _ 11517200111, 7.1,- .115351001 i 115353015 115353010 115353009 1153530 R, 14 13 2 1 115353012 1/5356016 s 115353014 115070096 115590014 115050028 1,15070006 W }4L i Figure 1-4 Sheet 16 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-62 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 115161009 115161010/ 115171001 115171002 M15171003 11.5171004 r1151f05 1151.,72013 15172012 1,- 1. 155117 011 F K ,f 115163005 - 1 1.15163004 111551630th Legend 115163002 ' Potential Electrical Conduit Location 115163001 Q Anticipated Sign Location `,• J{ - Proposed Edge of Pavement 115172019�,:+/115100035 Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier 1153510 3' 115351022 1153'51021 115351020 1��1019 115351018 115351017 115351016 1,15351014 115351013 115351012 115351009 + 115351008 15351007 115352001 5352002 115352003 115352004 115352005 1 15352006 1153520 '1 115352008 115352009 ' 115352010 115352015 115352014' 115352019 -115353002 115353003 115353004 --a 115353005� 115353006 }. 11t5353007 • 115353011'r •ate _ 1153530412,..,4'' `NICe t•^ 115356016 115353014 5353015, J j-11559001 44:* 4• 1150550`019 15050028 115590013 115362021 115362 11535300 115371013 115371015 115371014 31 53710118 11t5371016] 115371017 7-z m Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping v y r 115371003 1115371002• 5371008 11537101+1 1/5371010 115371012 115371009 RlpGil a' 115372004 • 11537.2005 115372003 115372006 115372001 \ i ,_-�_ 115372002`.. 11559001r7 :1WNW SS620708 115362007 Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 15372014 — - Existing Edge of Pavement — - Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall Q State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary L i LOD 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 115372013 115372012/ 115 4011 -A115372 010 '115372009 15372008 115590026 1 12 10 i 115372018 1,15372019 �-ti 115372020 115372021 Figure 1-4 Sheet 17 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-64 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 141MMCe7691177ME 122180034 22180034 �L /12218y0017 '122180018 12217 �122171002 /22171001 12218000 021910�14 122191013 .122191015 - rY 122191016 1122191003 12 1191017 12219/002 A, 122191001 115022044 22' 022191001 • I 1/5022040 - 115022042 115022039 `,, 115022041 115022043 111502 010 f 115021009 /15021008 •115022017 1,15022018 115022019 1150 020 115022021A% t 115022005 1115022006. 115022022 115022004 415022003 I ' 115022002 1/5022001 15030048 3 115Cw 006�0 \ J15666002 4 5660003- 1 N 115022'013 :i 1224715'06 4 •. 1224710V 122471003 122471002 122471001 122461002 1160 00JJ44 115040021 + 11'5040034 r115030018, 115030019 R: " 115030020 115030016 115030017 115030021 4/116. 115030022 115030023 11503 00 24 503009 115660004 115030015 115030025 w' 115030096 122472015 1224720 6 12247(2002 122472019 122462007 22461003 0, 115040043 115040026 115040045 115030613 115030014 1150 012 1` '115030028 ` it 115030026 , ,15036028 L 1150 115030027 03030 115030031 . 115030040 115310045 Jacinto DTr 12247 122462008 _i��. 11•01'.4122521008 il )7 Legend m Potential Electrical Conduit Location Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline — - Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 122462009/ • - 122462013 _ 122462012 122462017 r 122462011 J115040033 i, 4 115,040029 1 0 • -115030084�1150300 /115030086 1115030090 1 5030088 115310046 115310034 115310047 115030050 115030083 115310041 115310018 115040039 11504005 115310020 115310019 115040012 5050034 i 12245,10.15 12246,1001 115100004 14 22451012 115342005 1153420 04\ 11534 00 ,6 �115342007 �115342021 115342027 1153420255 Figure 1-4 Sheet 18 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-66 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 122140001 12217103 7► 7, 122171027: 12217/025 `l 122171023 2216201ti- 1 122162010 22,162009 22162017 122162018 122162019 ,,122 1 22163001 �12 163002 1221630 2 • 122163021 •1F 22163003 i 122163004 22162008 1221620007 10, 122162020 122162006, 122162021 122162022 122163020 12216301 12222116�4015 -122164016 �4 122164017 122171016 �12 171017 r 122171018 IZZI /lUZ4M1, - �122171019 023 122171020 1 \ 122171021 7 0,,X1 . 122171022 22130051 N ....4022230006 122230002 22171026 22171015 122171014 4 122172006 122172005 ftr" • 122172004 122172003 122170013 1 2172007 122172008 _1022172009 122172001 � 122172010..• e 122172011 122172012 122162005 122162(03 122162024 .1 1221300 �22130011, 22130010? 122230009 122171012. '1 122171011 . 122171010 122173006. • 122173007 .4 ., 122173008 �122173009 '111 122173010 • ' 96‘61 122173N 122173011 i Y 122173012, , 1 217301T* Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier m Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 41 2150016 12215001i, • 122180022A. 122162002 122162025 122126 „Milk ,122173005 ti � 1212217�-;6 4 i 2173003� 122173082 + - .122174008 122174007 122174006 • 122174005 1, 174004 62001 �122 74003 122174013 122174002 122174001 122163009 122163005" 132163008 122163007' r 122163006 122174014 122174015 4221740 6 122163010 r 122163011' + 12216 012 122163017.. F\ 122163013 p". l� 122163016 122163014 , 122163011511110 122192007 122192004 122192008 04r 12219200322192005r a� 122192009 122192002� -- •• 122192006 .- .�V-� • 1221920`2 12219201'1 - J 11930000 t.115660001 115022035 122192013 122192014 .. 1221920�15 122192016i 115022036 122174 09 s. 11.122174011 ,122 3.4010 122174012 rcOYa °3 122180031 122180020 22.180021; 122171006 i 1 2 7it 122180017' ♦, r y �. 122171004/122180018 , 122171003 /f 122150022" 122171002 122171001 122191014 , 122191012 �,►'10 _ 122191011 dr.'122191013 "! 122191015 12219/010 a 122191004 lily 1' f .00122191005- 1.22191003 0122191006 122191007 � dry ;.12`2191001. 12219219 , - 122192018 a f 2192017 115022037 115022032 1 .,' 22191002 `12267,0045 122491002 Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing Edge Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement — - Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 122150024 122150021 122150 20 122180032 I� 122180034 122180007 122191016 1221191017 122191001 122191018 115022044 w 115022040-•••• 4 115022042 11502204f1 i22P' g 115022039 1150220381 )11+1y 115021001, 115021010 115021002 11502,1009 r.rf 15022043 Ltaguna Dr 11502201�4 115022013 • 1502201115 5 022012 �y r , 1/5040021 • Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 122481004 122481003 122481002 pi, 1 2481001 122471012 ++r 122471011 122471010 122471009 �122471007 122471006 ' 12247100 r � ' 122471004 122244711003 S 122471002 122471001 122461002 �\ 115040019 12 )3 )4 1224720,10 1 2 2013 12247�20 J. 122472015 12247-2016 122472 122472018 12247*2019J 122.462005, A 122462006 y\ 122461003 - r) 115040020 115040044 / 1150. 4400 4 .i 4E1,15040024, Figure 1-4 Sheet 19 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-68 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project -125270030 12527.0035 125270035 . — 1 a„� f 11 22070034 ' i ►a 26250055 -Acref St ,i ) 26250057 126250058 12527000 125270034 • F122070036 ;14090068 122070016 122070014 12207023 1 122070028 122090055 122090056g f-�-gMS' 122090053 pTM , 122090063 -r �44;4 _ L. 122120020 ark 122090061 12, 25260K 4 s 125270012 Legend Potential Electrical Conduit Locati Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping on I� Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) / 2c ,` d � 12 080006 !! 122080019� 122080005 122008800001 12208001-7 122080003 122080004 122080030 ' ' 122080031 122080035 122080032 1122080049 1.I,122080048 11, 122080009 122080041 12208 007 Hidden 22670043 p.• 122680010 122680009 122680i�008 122680007 •r ,.. • - 122680006 T 122680005' im 122680004 122680003 r 122670029 12 8001111 1226800112 122680013 _.darbrook 122680045 ' ro-,*1 -122680046 122680036 . 122680035 1 122680037 122680048 Sageleaf . 1226809324 122680034 12268061 122680033 226� 42680026 = 12268002p +�4 122680027 � 2680067 122680060 m122 86 0061 22 680023 122670032 12-2670036• # ;:#0:0/0/00k ' 122670038 r, 1 + 122670034 �I� �� - . II r 11A I r � � II r � r 122670033— �_ +122670035 I i. re p 22230011 12267,0042 .. I • 122670019 122130051 122130052 122670021 „ i 12267002p r122130025 122130024 122130022 22130021; �r 122130020 • s1 122130011 22130010 Figure 1-4 Sheet 20 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-70 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATia1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 i i 4 --- 1.125260032 1252700 iihat 1 1 12509 018 7 111 . 125090044 e 125170020 125210033 125210021 125210036 -4 125090047 125_170026 25210035 252;10038' 25260039 1252.7,0030 125090024 125090045 25170025 12522005 125220028 125220052 t -�3 2.5260027' 7 i .125260( 4 r �F \125260028NN ' 12! fr • \125260029� 12526.0.030 g !125260031 12522003 125220036 12522004 '125220043 125220037 '12522004616 125220024 '125220015 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls 1 SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping IS9 r 125100030 125180010 ..r = Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing /A Temporary Construction Easement - Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 n Pavement Area Bridge Expansion 1 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 125280019 N M1252800223., Figure 1-4 Sheet 21 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-72 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project C.".; N N N 0 v x E 0 c c Q m 7 w U s\HDR\00537 08\ma Y 125020011 1250�900024 25020022 27210006 127210010 .127230014 3Rd St 12722003 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls = SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier 4_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 127240008' 12724001.1- F .._ 127240013 f 1127240017 �12724001 125030048 12L 5#0053/ I a 125030053 25030057 125100042 .125100041 �125100006 25100038 2510003 12503(00,1 27240021 Willow Dr a m= Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing Edge Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement — - Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Wall Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion MI State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary L i LOD Potential Staging Area 0 50 100 n Proposed Water N Quality BMP Feet Location 200 N Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 1-4 Sheet 22 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-74 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project I I r•I r• • AI,: .4 .4 ALI. A I I 11,r, l'•••,-", t•flI 127180019 Elm_Dr9E- 127.1900,16 Spencer 12704621 L� 127190008- 127210020 �b 127030055 • 127030054 270400r i 127050029 127180024' + L.' — 127180027 27210006 27180035" Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 127040049 127040042 127040015 127040043 /27040049 127050019 127050020 127200042 127200040 27200046 127,200066 12720005' /27200056 127220043j 127220038 = Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement - (.711 127040009 127040010 127040013 127050009 127050018 27050010 Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water , Quality BMP Location 27050013 1270500�12r I. Li 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 1-4 Sheet 23 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-76 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project s t 131230014 12702004 127030043 12703005 12703004; 127030055 5Th,St 3123009 1313100 131310013 /3132002 131320020 127,020044 /27020042 1311r1900R _ eri Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location — Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area ® Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 [:71 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location L� 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 31270002 13127000 131310003 /31310004 131310005 •11313 01 006 134320003 131320005 1313200073 3132001144`` 131320015 13132001 34320012 �11° 12702002 127020014 -12702003_9 • - .127020013 r' 127030039 • 127030037 127,030052 127030007 127030050 6. 127020020 1270300.18 127030031=- T 127030013 127030012 , 127030020 •'127030021 y Mulberry r r Figure 1-4 Sheet 24 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-78 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project School i Norco 131120020 13'1191009 131191012 ., 1311920 13123001 13123_0.0.2, 131030028 131030049 y •, �r rr% 'z 131030052 Y 1310300.48 1.131030066 :131030069 13103005 131030071 131102003 131102003 131102005 �r 13110200. fry 31030065 131030036 131030012 8! 131030014. 131030015 131030016 R I _- Detroit St ' 131102012 31230009 131102009 13112001,7 131102013 131120012 131120013 131120015 131120016 131120017 131120018 13119i • 31192 119200 3123000 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping i ® Bridge Expansion — - Existing Edge 414 it k = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing /A Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement — - Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Wall Existing 1-15 n State Right -of -Way Pavement Area Parcel Boundary L i LOD Potential Staging Area 0 50 100 Proposed Water Quality BMP Feet Location 200 N Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) till A Figure 1-4 Sheet 25 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-80 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 .sr _ 152070006 // t / "ilkWv2tor /I -�; . I i * l y • ..� • f 152070003 r 131030030 1� 131030031 14i 131030028 3103006 152070011 52070012 c. . ...'' h •71:-Tr• 4 '` " 152070003 Legend Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location - Proposed Edge of Pavement -- Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall m SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping i �t 15207'0006 r ' l_1 n 152070007 -•t Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 0 I_ i 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 1 r Figure 1-4 Sheet 26 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-82 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 M Mississippi Dr 15207001 Kern River Dr 152060011 152070012 Easter'Bay 1 152210012 • IOW 152182006 152182r0005 152182004 .152182002 15 �1000 82 152190059 - 1 152190055 152190054 152190053 152190052 52190051 152190050 152190649 152190048 152060012 52060009 1 a 1 152060006 152060008 152080007� 3_ t AL Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location m m Lr— Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing /A Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area ® Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 C. 1 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 0 L� 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 1-4 Sheet 27 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-84 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project AlMMTe765115Mal:1d1TiTinYLiF1RF.T.T.GEIMWAIgMiMilIIGI1fi\mtuin:<. PinolANP47KOF3iMEM f Kourtney et JaneIle Cir Nicole Ct /5255002 /52550028 1)525`y500029 152550026 ># 452550025 .052320020 ` �1523220001 - 1523200,16 152320019 52550022 e 152550023Fir 152320022 152320023 41152320024 152320025 152320026 152320027 152320028 152320029 152320030` ' 152320031 152330001 15233004. 152330004 523300054 152330006 152330007 152330011' "� r 152330010r 1523~30008 fl 152330012 R ' r 1 t 152330009 r� `glit 152330013 River St Kayak St s .15222210020 152200045 152200046 152200047 152200048 15220�9 152200050 1522 0051 152210013 , 152`100414 111.1 15223110000115 .152210016 152210017 1522/0018 152210012 52182006 I I f I� i Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall = SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water , Quality BMP Location L� 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 152020010 I 1 1 520.6.00.09 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 152020012 152020007 152020008 152060008 f . —3 Figure 1-4 Sheet 28 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-86 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 160030050 160030050 152010004 152550010 1525500,11 .152550004 152550008 152550009� h 1 r y 4 II 152550 18 y11111. 152550017 15255_000019 152550021', 52550022 15255002 1152550026 152550028` 152550.025: -*A III 152550023 600500; Limonite 152010049 152010013 — to Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Locati Q Anticipated Sign Location — Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier m m Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping on Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 1st 0*-r' i �! ,may Jty G. i c.. " I f Figure 1-4 Sheet 29 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-88 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 160030050' t 160030021 y�DaybreakDr fil 160030005- rrr�--7.---160030054 160030950 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping m= Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement - (.711 Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water , Quality BMP Location Li 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 160050023 160050031 Figure 1-4 Sheet 30 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-90 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project EA\Fia1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 is\HDR\00537 08\maod 160020023 1600�30042� f41w 00300417 r' AM PP Jamboree or 160030043 • �160030021 its '.r 60040014' Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall = SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier 4_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping m= Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement - Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water , Quality BMP Location L i 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 160050043 160050031 Figure 1-4 Sheet 31 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-92 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Proiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 1940 160020028 160020023 160040020 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EAOE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping f�[ 0019 = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing /A Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area ® Bridge Expansion — - Existing Edge of Pavement — - Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall n State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary L i LOD Potential Staging Area 0 50 100 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Feet 200 N A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 1-4 Sheet 32 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-94 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATIa1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 1 Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location — Proposed Edge of Pavement — - Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EAOE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Feet El — Proposed Median BarrierLSource. County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Proposed Striping - I� Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing r// Temporary Construction Centerline — - Existing Edge of Pavement — - Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 n Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Li Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location A 160020027 156050025 160020010 f Y0 �l 446 cn a. b 1600400 156050027 A./. .160040021 160040020 160040024 1 Figure 1-4 Sheet 33 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-96 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 160040019 160040020 Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Locati Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping on Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Q Pavement Area Bridge Expansion L 7 Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) - f: Figure 1-4 Sheet 34 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-98 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project J arr.. - ! a. 156040064 '-r• y �itlY - 41. 156040069 a Iq>s-.••MaKxs am61 4.404 156040066 a 1'u111 i J.Rirate. r g m.q soltr *id witmlt air 1.1 I i I 156050019 iff411111 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1•. 1 , 1 1 1 1 I 1 . 1 11 I 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_ 1 I I . 11 0 , 1 1 1 1 1 I . 1 1 1 1 1 I 14 1 f 1 I 1 0N N t I 1 I I I Iw 1 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It 1 m l I 1 1 1 1 I 41 0 E 0 156050023 1 1+ 1 1 1 . ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 Ill It 1 I 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 Q q 1 a • a w w ;ts\HDRV00537 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 4... , I II 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I I l y 1 1 { 1 I I I 1 1 , I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 r 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'.1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 11•r.7MI • i r-. I .1 t s w� �a i n rnl 1o' 0 0 0 I n N cm] oa cn 0 0 n N ra.1 �+I 0 it F f1 t. 4 { Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit r Z EAOE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall I x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing 4:� � — - Existing Edge Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement — - Existing Drainage Proposed Pavement Area Culvert Proposed Grading Area Existing Wall Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location n State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary L i LOD 50 100 200 N �AFeet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 4 t low •NIMeA M•4 4111111 ■ p.- �• 1141,11111011111111 u ••• .•• • ••� .....4 Y......... .` •O. - •-.r`. • - to/1: Y■1.+.: ...rr.f.. 41.. •..a;.. • •■. w�rryyN .wM•. • • ••i.r ..•.V ♦W• • •■ •ii .4 .•./H 04 ■ • S .••. • ± win-�:..•• ) • `: ;• y. .• •••µ�. _ - ..: • • • 4 n •. ■: •. •• • • .. •• • /• •• �• ...In 156050027• • t :! a$ • •. • • �. • • o Figure 1-4 Sheet 35 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-100 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 156030038 Project Limits (Lane Improvement Limits) North: RIV-15 PM 51.4 Legend CI Potential Electrical Conduit Location Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 156030009 0 56040037 Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement _ — Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion 1 IZ Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 156030010 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right - Parcel Boundary LOD 100 Feet Source: County of Riverside HDR (2013); ESRI World Imager 2 Figure 1-4 Sheet 36 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-102 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project i 108336105 1 108336113 108336107 Hartford 108336104 . Litt ,108336410 158030041 1 r �� id I III 156030024 • 156030040 r P I 1 • 4 , .mpli 156030001 Xs:' 156030021 .056020036 ar Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement — - i Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EAOE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall = SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier 4_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping = Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall Q State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary L i LOD 50 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) A I 156030002 156030036 156020033 156030038 __da .i$ Figure 1-4 Sheet 37 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-104 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project F I •.' • ' '3-1560200211'r' Location - Add New Sign Structure (Express Lane Pricing) (2727++00) Electric conduit to pricing sign from Express Lane electrical / communication backbone 56030038 Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EAOE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls = SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping = Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing 4� l : Temporary Construction Easement - Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 1-1Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Li Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) A 15603t1006 156030029 art I, .1•r • M==1 r* 156030009 156030017 156030016 Figure 1-4 Sheet 38 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-106 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project A A ALI. A .11 Ir•rIA ••••••1-", I I 156030016 r 156040037 r= _.: y a 1 phi I 1 ; w Mar ■. I .• ierrr eIon • '4e.cErek .11 �'- ^ ,110 •01 ! 1 !l 's .;�,i is 111 t1 ! rrlow r 71111.71111 1 M■ Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit Z EAOE150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall �� 1 I ig 1 1� Proposed Median Barrier lJ_I 111111111� Proposed Striping r I I 156030032 156030014 156030015 Riverside '''1lillikbiliirltl��riT7rlll!?fl]llli"' I!(fir11 1111:;*1111111E1f11l1111;t:111111; "'111111'.'.lf11111`k ullII ; r r1111:`;;llEljfl77!f1111ii1.".1t11111.. flu m , 156030033 = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing 4:� l Temporary Construction Easement - Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 n Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Li Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location i ill Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) A Figure 1-4 Sheet 39 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-108 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project I ■ + r . a 1 . l 1 1 ■ p a r . a . .4r 1 1 . 7 a . a a . e 1 r • r I r. 141. ■ 1 ; 1 a ▪ r r I I• r a 1 4 4 a . i• 1 ▪ 4 . .'a a a 156020026 15602003 156020042 _.� 5602002 Potential underground electrical conduit for sign illumination Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall z SR-91 Designed Walls = SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 156020009 Location - Add New Sign Structure (1/2 Mile Advanced Notice) (2741++00) = Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing 4:� I Temporary Construction Easement - Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 n Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Li Potential Staging Area 0 50 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 56030029 Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Bernardino County Riverside County A Figure 1-4 Sheet 40 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-110 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTroiects\HDR\00537 08\maodoc\IS EATia1 4 Build Alt Anno.mxd Date: 12/21/2015 19402 •444. 02381.2144 Location - Mount Sign Panel to Existing Overhead Sign Structure (1-Mile Advanced)(2771+50) Legend = Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit = EA0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall x SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Ak_ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 023815216 = Environmentally Sensitive — Area Fencing inn Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location n Li 50 Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 023815217 A Figure 1-4 Sheet 41 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-112 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project i 5•4111 5104147D-101:341.5 i G A1ontme 69hli'.7mmU]:v1Iin 08,ma Ddoc4S EA,Fic 1 4 Build Al 023822116 • 023822v f 023822132 • 1 N t 02382213 4 F .1' +iy ` % 02382213 23812175 023812144 A��� � 023812143 • + rrf = -� A. I • i 111 t - '023822136 • • 023822130 Jurupa St 1 0 410 Mgr Wel TT! _/it f 023823110, r 4if y r'. 0" • w` M ; ,: r r4.14 ,' , i' r � ; • ,.. .,;023823111, i ,S: a F ,0 .- L P. ,00 023812170 023812171 • 023823105 023823107 0238/2139 023812162 1 � j 023812163 4• 023812160.1 -Yl Legend o Potential Electrical Conduit Location Q Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement - Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier m Existing Noise Wall m SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing Temporary Construction Easement Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location (Oj Centerline Existing Edge of Pavement Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 50 100 200 N Feet Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) A 48 Figure 1-4 Sheet 42 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-114 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 0238.19324 023819318 023819319 023822113 023822132 023822128 023822129 p23822122 00' 023822130 • •} .-._+.30-I 023822136 if 023821117 023821116 023822124 023822123 023821175 L02.....023821172 1t023,8211681/ 38 0238211 02382116 023821164 023821163 023821162 023821155 023_ 821154 023821153, 023821152 023822141 023822143 023822142 0238221410 023822140 023822139 023822138 023822137 ei 411, I - Legend Potential Electrical Conduit Location Anticipated Sign Location Proposed Edge of Pavement Cut Limit Fill Limit EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Median Barrier Proposed Striping 023821151 023821150 023r 21149 023821148 Mount 2-mile advance sign panel on back of existing overhead sign structure 3 isiu r I 023823111; ' .1 s. F' • r' .141- 1. .14 1N 41 .�'; , �. .4 . �s - .. ��Iy ;1� 1is ISrF - .� • - 023823110 i� Environmentally Sensitive — Centerline Area Fencing — - Existing Edge VI Temporary Construction of Pavement Easement C•Zi Proposed Pavement Area Proposed Grading Area Existing 1-15 Pavement Area Bridge Expansion Potential Staging Area 0 Proposed Water Quality BMP Location 023825110 7 -1 4 ' T i FF 1' P r Pi i/' •4 R Ate •401 F 4, 0 L i Existing Drainage Culvert Existing Wall State Right -of -Way Parcel Boundary LOD 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: County of Riverside (2013); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 023823105 s 023823107 023825- 1099 023823103 • 02 823117 023823118 02361211 Figure 1-4 Sheet 43 Build Alternative Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-116 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Figure 1-5, Typical Sections 10' Shoulder 12' 12' Lanes Existing Conditions 10' Shoulder 12' Lanes 12' 35' Median 35' Median 14' 20'TEL I Shoulder �2 Shoulder I TEL Median Add One Tolled Express Lane • Cajalco Road to Hidden Valley Parkway • Cantu Galleano Ranch Road to State Route 60 ['Shoulder i i u' i 1 / / / /kg / ,/ / /... 12' 12' 12' Lanes 12' 14' 12' TEL Add Two Tolled Express Lanes • Hidden Valley Parkway to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road 8' 12' 12' Lanes 12' Lanes 12' 10' Shoulder 10' Shoulder 8' I �21~ I Shoulder Shoulder Median 12' I 14' TEL 12' 12' I 12' Lanes 12' 10' Shoulder Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-118 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.3.2.3 RELATIONSHIP TO SR-91 CIP The SR-91 CIP will construct some project components (express lane improvements, transition lanes, and noise barriers) within the I-15 corridor prior to construction of the I-15 Express Lanes Project. These SR-91 CIP project components have been analyzed and addressed as part of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project, Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) (Caltrans 2012). Some noise barriers that are part of the SR-91 CIP may be constructed at the same time as construction of the I-15 Express Lanes Project. Locations of these SR-91 CIP noise barriers are shown in Figure 1-4. 1.3.2.4 ACCESS Access into and out of the tolled express lanes would be restricted, similar to the express lane access operations on the existing SR-91 express lanes and based on guidance specified in Caltrans' Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) 11-02, April 2011 (Caltrans 2011). This means that movement into and out of the express lane is restricted to designated locations where openings allow vehicles to move into and out of the express lanes. Striping and delineator posts would separate the express lane from the adjacent mixed flow lanes between access locations. Areas where vehicles are permitted to enter the express lanes are termed "ingress" locations. Locations where vehicles may leave the express lanes are referred to as "egress" locations. Tolled express lane access would not be allowed outside of these designated locations. • I-15 Southbound — Ingress Locations. o At East -South SR-60 Connector On -Ramp. o Immediately before Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Off -Ramp. o At Hidden Valley Parkway On -Ramp. • I-15 Southbound — Egress Locations. o Optional: Between Limonite Avenue On -Ramp and 6th Street Off -Ramp. o Between 6th Street On -Ramp and 2nd Street Off -Ramp. o Between Magnolia Avenue On -Ramp and Ontario Avenue Off -Ramp. o Between El Cerrito Off -Ramp and El Cerrito On -Ramp. • I-15 Northbound — Ingress Locations. o Between El Cerrito Off -Ramp and El Cerrito On -Ramp. o Between Ontario Avenue On -Ramp and Magnolia Avenue Off -Ramp. o Between Hidden Valley Parkway Off -Ramp and 2nd Street On -Ramp.* o Optional: Between 6th Street On -Ramp and Limonite Avenue Off -Ramp. • I-15 Northbound — Egress Locations. o Between Hidden Valley Parkway Off -Ramp and 2nd Street On -Ramp.* o At Cantu-Galleano Ranch Loop On -Ramp. o Before North-West SR-60 Connector Off -Ramp. • Denotes combined ingress/egress. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-119 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.3.2.5 ENFORCEMENT RCTC will establish the toll policy and business rules to govern use of the express lanes prior to the start of operations. It is anticipated that HOVs would use the tolled express lanes for a reduced fee or for free. HOV occupancy for the project is expected to be defined as three -or - more (3+) persons per vehicle, as determined by RCTC. Motorists not meeting the HOV occupancy requirement would be allowed to use the express lanes by paying a toll. The toll would vary with the time of day and the day of the week based on levels of congestion in the general purpose lanes and the express lanes. The toll rate schedule will likely be similar to that used on the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County. Many of the current users of the 91 Express Lanes live in Riverside County and will also be users of the I-15 Express Lanes; the appearance and operating rules will be similar to minimize confusion to the customers. The primary means of toll collection on the express lanes would be automatic collection from registered motorists who carry in -vehicle -mounted FasTrak® transponders. License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras would capture license plate images of vehicles that do not display a recognizable toll transponder. Although the use of LPR and toll transponders would automate toll violation enforcement, California Highway Patrol (CHP) field personnel would still be required to perform occupancy enforcement. CHP enforcement responsibilities would focus on visually confirming occupancy on the tolled express lanes to enforce vehicle passenger declarations in the 3+ verification lane and other traffic violations (e.g., illegal ingress/egress within restricted access zones and speeding). 1.3.2.6 ELECTRONIC TOLLING EQUIPMENT The toll collection system would be located within "toll zones" located along the express lanes. Each toll zone would include all systems related to toll collection, photographic enforcement for violations, vehicle classification detection, enforcement personnel observation locations, and equipment to support the toll system integrator, including all hardware, software, electrical, and communications equipment to facilitate toll collection. Equipment serving the toll collection and violation enforcement systems would generally include an overhead gantry, antenna, toll reader, vehicle sensor, pole -mounted camera, enforcement beacons, a hardened and protected utility cabinet on a concrete pad, and protected pavement areas to support enforcement and maintenance personnel. 1.3.2.7 DESIGN EXCEPTIONS Exceptions to design standards were requested to minimize environmental or right of way impacts and to avoid added project costs. Embankment slopes are proposed to be graded to 2:1 or flatter and protected by metal beam guard rail, instead of being graded to the standard 4:1, to avoid impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., to stay within the right of way, and/or to avoid the need for retaining walls. Median shoulder widths are proposed to vary between 2 and 10 feet, as opposed to the 10 foot standard, to prevent outside widening in many locations, which will eliminate the need for certain tie back and retaining walls, bridge widenings, or ramp reconstructions. Short sections of 11 foot lanes, rather than the standard 12 foot lanes, are proposed in specific locations to prevent outside widening and added construction costs. Finally, the northbound on -ramp at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road lane drop would occur more quickly than standard, to avoid an environmentally sensitive area. Table 1-8, below, summarizes the mandatory and advisory design features requiring an exception. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-120 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project Table 1-8. Summary of Mandatory Design Exceptions Feature HDM Index Standard Proposed Exception Stopping sight distance (SSD) 201.1 For V = 80 mph, SSD = 930 feet Provide SSD less than posted speed of 65 mph Vertical Clearance 204.8(5) Minimum vertical falsework clearance over freeways and non -freeways shall be 15 feet Provide vertical falsework clearance less than 15 feet Shoulder width 302.1 Shoulder widths from Table 302.1 should be a minimum of 10 feet Provide shoulder widths between 2 and 10 feet Horizontal clearances 309.1(3)(a) Minimum horizontal clearance shall be equal to the standard shoulder width (10 feet) Provide horizontal clearances between 2 and 10 feet Interchange spacing 501.3 Minimum interchange spacing shall be one mile in urban areas and two miles between freeway -to -freeway interchanges and other interchanges Maintain existing interchange spacing Stopping sight distance 203.1 Horizontal alignment shall provide at least the minimum SSD Provide SSD less than posted speed of 65 mph Horizontal clearances 309.1(1) Horizontal clearances shall be provided to meet horizontal sight distance requirements Provide SSD less than posted speed of 65 mph Weaving sections 504.7 Minimum weaving length shall be 5,000 feet between freeway -to -freeway interchanges and other interchanges Slightly improve nonstandard weaving length Lane width 301.1 Minimum lane width shall be 12 feet Provide 11-foot lane widths in non -weaving sections of 3+ verification Standards for superelevation 202.2(1) Superelevation rates from Table 202.2 shall be used within the given range of curve radii Maintain existing mainline superelevation rate Superelevation transitions 202.5(1) Design in accordance to Figure 202.5A Maintain existing superelevation transition lengths Superelevation runoff 202.5(2) 67 percent of runoff on the tangent and 33 percent on curve Maintain existing superelevation runoffs Embankment slopes 304.1 Embankment slopes should be 4:1 or flatter Embankment slopes graded to 2:1 or flatter Two lane exit ramps 504.3(6) An auxiliary lane approximately 1,300 feet long should be provided in advance of a 2-lane exit Maintain existing 1,120 foot auxiliary lane Freeway -to -freeway connections 504.4(6) At a branch merge, a 2,500-foot auxiliary lane should be provided beyond the merge of one lane of the inlet Maintain existing 2,185 foot auxiliary lane Auxiliary lanes 504.5 Auxiliary lanes should be considered in all cases when the weaving distances are less than 2,000 feet Maintain existing 1,658 foot auxiliary lane Mainline lane reduction at interchanges 504.6 The basic number of mainline lanes should not be dropped through a local service interchange Maintain existing lane drop locations Minimum grades 204.3 Minimum grades should be 0.3 percent Maintain existing grade Lane drops 504.3(2)(b) The lane drop transition between the limit line and the 6-foot separation point should be between 30:1 and 50:1 15:1 taper to avoid an Environmentally Sensitive Area The design exceptions have been approved. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1-121 Chapter 1. Proposed Project 1.3.3 Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management Alternatives 1.3.3.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVES Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies increase the efficiency of existing facilities; they are actions that increase the number of vehicle trips a facility can carry without increasing the number of through lanes. Examples of TSM strategies include ramp metering, auxiliary lanes, turning lanes, reversible lanes, and traffic signal coordination. Other TSM strategies include encouraging the public to use public and private transit and ridesharing programs. Although no specific TSM features are included as part of the project, the tolled express lanes serve a transportation system management purpose by providing safer and more efficient operation of I-15 within the project limits. The project provides express lanes that will maximize use of I-15; thus, the project is considered consistent with transportation system management goals and will support efficient operation of I-15 within the project limits once it is in place. 1.3.3.2 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ALTERNATIVES Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives encourage regional strategies to improve congestion through the reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and the construction of roadway facilities featuring higher vehicle occupancy. TDM Alternatives may include providing quality transportation choices for travelers that could improve the methods, costs, routes available, and travel time. The incorporation of TDM alternatives generally reduces the number of single -occupancy vehicle trips by contributing monetarily to regional agencies that promote ridesharing. Mass transit and non -motorized alternatives are examples of approaches to promoting ridesharing. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would construct four tolled express lanes (two in each direction) from Hidden Valley Parkway to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and two tolled express lanes (one lane in each direction) from Hidden Valley Parkway to Cajalco Road and from Cantu Galleano Ranch Road to SR-60. The construction of the tolled express lanes would operate with the same policy as RCTC's 91 Express Lane Policy (ROTC 2012) and provide a free or discounted rate to carpools with three or more occupants and buses. This ridesharing incentive is a TDM measure that would be implemented under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) and is expected to increase the occupancy rate on I-15 and reduce the amount of traffic demand. 1.3.4 Identification of a Preferred Alternative The draft IS/EA prepared and approved for the I-15 Express Lanes Project was circulated for public review and comment from July 29 to August 28, 2015. During the circulation period, public review comments regarding the draft IS/EA were received by Caltrans and reviewed. After review and consideration of all the comments received and weighing and comparing the benefits and impacts of all of the alternatives in conjunction with satisfying the purpose and need for the project, the Project Development Team identified the Build Alternative as the Preferred Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-122 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project Alternative during a meeting held on October 21, 2015. In comparison to the No -Build Alternative, and as discussed in the IS/EA, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would meet the purpose of the project, which is to: improve existing and future traffic operations and mainline travel times; expand travel choice; increase travel time reliability; and expand the tolled express lane network. In addition, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is consistent with the project description in the current 2015 FTIP (project number RIV071267) and is identified in the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, Amendment #2 (project number RIV071267). The No -Build Alternative would not meet the purpose of the project, as it would not improve existing and future traffic operations and mainline travel times, expand travel choice, increase travel time reliability, and expand the tolled express lane network. In addition, the No -Build Alternative would not address the existing and projected deficiencies in capacity and operations within the project limits This alternative would not be consistent with the 2015 FTIP and the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, Amendment #2. 1.3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion As part of the development and design of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), two additional alternatives were considered. 1. Add an HOV lane in each direction along I-15 between Cajalco Road and SR-60. 2. Add the tolled express lanes as planned under the project along with one general purpose lane in each direction between Cajalco Road and SR-60. As described in Section 1.1.2, Project Background, above, RCTC established an ad hoc committee composed primarily of commissioners representing cities along the I-15 corridor to consider the most appropriate scope for the I-15 CIP. The ad hoc committee met four times between November 2010 and September 2012. The above alternatives were evaluated and the recommendations of the ad hoc committee and RCTC staff were presented at RCTC's annual commission workshop on January 31, 2013 (RCTC 2013a). It was determined that, of the three alternatives evaluated, only the currently scoped Tolled Express Lanes Project would be fiscally feasible. Outcomes regarding the two alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion are described below. The cost for the HOV alternative was estimated to be approximately $330 million. Based on a review of existing and anticipated future funding for projects in Riverside County, it was determined that funding of an additional lane on I-15 from Cajalco Road to SR-60 could only be reasonably accomplished through the construction of a tolled facility along I-15. Therefore, the HOV-only alternative was dropped from further consideration as there is not a funding mechanism currently available that could fund the construction of the HOV lanes. The cost for the tolled express lanes with the general purpose lanes alternative was estimated to be approximately $1.3 billion. A Toll Revenue Study was prepared to evaluate the potential revenue generation that would be associated with the I-15 Express Lanes. Based on the results of this study it was determined that toll revenue generated by the I-15 tolled express lanes would not be sufficient to construct both the tolled express lanes and the general purpose lanes. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-123 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project Therefore, this alternative was dropped from further consideration as there is not a funding mechanism currently available that could fund the construction of the tolled express lanes and the general purpose lanes. 1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed The following permits, reviews, and approvals listed in Table 1-9 would be required for project construction. Table 1-9. Required Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Agency Permit/Approval Status California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement To be submitted after approval of Project Report and final Environmental Document. MSHCP consistency review for biological resources. The project received an MSHCP Consistency Determination on April 14, 2016. Possible California Endangered Species Act 2081 permit (if Townsend's big -eared bat is listed and present). No change to list status of Townsend big -eared bat as of December 2015. Regional Water Quality Control Board Porter -Cologne Act and CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be submitted after approval of Project Report and final Environmental Document. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit To be submitted after approval of Project Report and final Environmental Document. Section 408 Permit To be submitted after approval of Project Report and final Environmental Document. Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP consistency review for biological resources DBESP Review The project received an MSHCP and DBESP Consistency Determination on April 14, 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation Section 7 Biological Opinion received on April 20, 2016; revised Biological Opinion received on April 29, 2016. USFWS MSHCP consistency review for biological resources The project received an MSHCP Consistency Determination on April 14, 2016. Federal Highway Administration Air Quality Conformity Determination Air Quality Conformity Determination received on January 4, 2016 and conformity reconfirmed on April 26, 2016. State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water Act Section 402—The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the General NPDES Construction Permit will be prepared and is expected to provide all the necessary temporary pollution and erosion control measures required during construction. To be submitted after approval of Project Report and final Environmental Document. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1-124 Chapter 1. Proposed Project Agency Permit/Approval Status Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Encroachment Permit To be submitted after approval of Project Report and final Environmental Document. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Authorization obtained via the process prescribed under CPUC General Order 88-B Process to begin after approval of final Environmental Document. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-125 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 1. Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 1-126 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Chapter 2. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As part of the scoping and environmental analysis carried out for the project, the following environmental issues were considered but no adverse impacts were identified. As a result, there is no further discussion about these issues in this document. • Wild and Scenic Rivers: The project is not in the vicinity of a designated Wild and Scenic River. Where short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) impacts would differ, or where these impacts warrant independent discussion, separate headings are included and discussions are provided, as appropriate. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-1 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use 2.1 Human Environment 2.1.1 Land Use 2.1.1.1 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE Information used in this section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015a). The project study area for existing and general plan land uses that could be potentially directly affected by the project was defined as approximately 1,000 feet from each side of the existing I- 15 centerline. In addition, a 0.5-mile distance was used to analyze recreational facilities along the project corridor. The CIA used the following county and city jurisdictional general plans to determine current and future land uses: County of Riverside General Plan (October 2003) (County of Riverside 2003a), Temescal Canyon Area Land Use Plan (County of Riverside 2003b), County of San Bernardino 2007 General Plan (March 2007) (County of San Bernardino 2007), City of Corona General Plan (March 2004) (City of Corona 2004), City of Eastvale General Plan Land Use Map (June 2012) (City of Eastvale 2012), City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Land Use Map (July 2011) (City of Jurupa Valley 2011), Norco General Plan Land Use Map (May 2012) (City of Norco 2012), Norco Auto Mall Specific Plan (March 2011) (City of Norco 2011 a) and Norco Gateway Specific Plan (March 2011) (City of Norco 2011 b). Existing Land Use The project area extends through seven land use jurisdictions: Riverside and San Bernardino counties and the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, and Ontario. A site reconnaissance and a review of aerial photographs were used to determine existing land uses located within 0.25 mile of the corridor compared to the general use land uses surrounding the project area. The general study area is highly urbanized. The land uses adjacent to the project corridor have been grouped into four area categories along the I-15 corridor, from south to north, as described below. • Unincorporated Riverside County. From the southern terminus of the project to south of Bedford Wash, and north of Cajalco Road to north of El Cerrito Road. South of Bedford Wash, the area contains residential land uses to the west and commercial land uses to the east. North of Bedford Wash, there are residential land uses to the east and west. • City of Corona. The area immediately surrounding Bedford Wash consists of open space, with commercial land uses further to the west and residential land uses further to the east, until north of East Ontario Avenue. The area north of East Ontario Avenue consists of industrial land uses to the east, northeast, and west near the Interstate 15 (I-15)/State Route 91 (SR-91) interchange. The Cresta Verde Golf Course is located northeast of the highway interchange. • City of Norco. The area north of Hidden Valley Parkway to the Santa Ana River generally consists of residential land uses to the east and commercial and/or industrial land uses to the west. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-2 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use • Cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, and Ontario. The area immediately north of the Santa Ana River to the west consists of open space recreation uses. Land uses further north of the Santa Ana River in the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley are residential and commercial retail flanking both sides of I-15, with large business park uses north to State Route 60 (SR- 60) and industrial uses to the San Bernardino County Line. In the City of Ontario, at the northern terminus of the project corridor, land uses are predominantly industrial. Future Land Use Future land uses are characterized as general planned land uses. General planned land uses adjacent to the project corridor are shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-4 and are described below. • Unincorporated Riverside County. General planned land uses within the unincorporated portions of Riverside County and within the project limits include: Retail Commercial/Low Density Residential, Estate Residential, Commercial Residential, Light Industrial, Medium and Medium High Density Residential, and Business Park. • City of Corona. General planned land uses within the City of Corona and within the project limits include: General Commercial, Open Space General, Light Industrial, Office/Professional, Light Industrial, Mixed Use: Industrial and Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks, Estate, General Industrial, Mixed Use Commercial and Residential, and Rural Residential. • City of Norco. General planned land uses within the City of Norco and within the project limits include: Gateway Specific Plan, Commercial Community, Public Lands, Residential/Agriculture, Public Lands, and Water Related. • Cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley, and Unincorporated San Bernardino County. General planned land uses within the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley, and unincorporated San Bernardino County include: High, Medium High, and Medium Density Residential; Open Space Recreational; Commercial Retail; Light Industrial; Commercial Office; Business Park; and City. • The area within 0.25 mile of the I-15 corridor south of the Santa Ana River is generally characterized as built out with little undeveloped land available for future development. The areas of Jurupa Valley and Eastvale have the greatest potential for future development because there is still available undeveloped land near the project area. Corona continues to grow as well, but in areas farther removed from the I-15 corridor. Growth in the area has slowed because of the recent economic downturn; however, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecasts substantial increases in population, housing, and employment in the area, according to its 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2012). This is due in part to the continuing availability of developable land in the outlying areas. Table 2-1 summarizes recent and currently planned developments as well as planned transportation improvements projects, as obtained from the city planning and development departments and transportation agencies in the vicinity of the project. The recent and currently planned developments are also shown on Figure 2-32 found in Section 2.4.1, Regulatory Setting, in Section 2.4, Cumulative Impacts. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-3 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-4 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance Sig nage Limits El] Counties Estate Residential Residential Community Estate Residential Very Low Density Residential Residential Community Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Residential Community Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential Very High Density Residential Rural Residential Rural Mountainous Figure 2-1 Unincorporated Riverside County Land Uses Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-6 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 110 ik0115A0J14- # ovireuilear r� r nrea. r OPS Viz �ran flit all W: wavon::m�21 m* � .sma". d,rizirt, top r'illiptoivg- *1, �► a� 1 �.. Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance Signage Limits Other Jurisdiction Agriculture Estate Fire Station General Commercial General Industry High Density Residential Low Density Residential Light Industrial Low -Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Use: Commercial Residential Mixed Use: Industrial and Commercial Mixed Use: Downtown Office/Professional Open Space Open Space General Open Space Recreation Park Rural Residential 1 • RIVERSIDE CITY UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY I in = I miles Figure 2-2 City of Corona Land Uses Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-8 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Project Lane Improvement Limits Counties Other Jurisdiction Agriculture Commerciai Community Commercial Office Hillside Areas Industrial Preservation and Development Institutional Parks Public Lands Residential Agriculture Residential Low School Specific Plan Water Related EASTVALE CORONA NORCO JURLI PA VALLEY RIVERSIDE CITY Figure 2-3 City of Norco Land Uses Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-10 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Froject Lane improvement Limits Advance Signage Limits I__ I Counties 1-7 City of Eastvale City of Jurupa Valley Other Jurisdiction Low Density Residential Residential Community Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Retail Commercial Office Light Industrial Business Park Public Facilities Agriculture Conservation Conservation Habitat Open Space Recreation Open Space Rural Water Freeway EASTVAl CORONA SAN BERNARDINOCOUNTY RIVERSIDECOUNTY JURUPA • • • • • VALEEY • • • • • • • • VI• • • • • • • .•.1• • • • • • PIC • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • L • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NORCO RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY of RIVERSIDE N W E 5 1 in = 1 mile Figure 2-4 Eastvale, Jurupa, and Unincorporated San Bernardino County Land Uses Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-12 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Table 2-1. Recent and Planned Area Development Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 1 Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project —between Cajalco Road and Temescal Canyon Road Riverside County Transportation Department Widening of Cajalco Road between 1-215 and Temescal Canyon Road from two to four lanes. Planning stages. Opening Year 2020. 2 1-15 Cajalco Interchange Project —between Weirick Road and El Cerrito Road City of Corona Construction of overcrossing on new alignment and reconstruction of on/off-ramps at Cajalco Road. Project is in final design. Construction anticipated to start in 2017. 3 Initial SR-91 CIP Project RTP ID#923- RIV071250 Riverside County Transportation Commission On SR-91/I-15: SR-91—construct one mixed -flow lane (SR-71 to 1-15)/one auxiliary lane at various locations (SR-241 to Pierce) (POC PM 14.43-18.91), CD system (2/3/4 lanes main-I-15), one toll express lane (TEL) and convert HOV to TEL each direction (OC to 1-15). -15—construct TEL median direct connector northbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91 and eastbound SR-91 to southbound 1-15, one TEL in each direction SR-91 direct connect Ontario Interchange (1-15 PM 37.56-42.94). Opening Year 2018. 4 Ultimate SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project RTP ID# RIV071250B Riverside County Transportation Commission This project would construct a direct connector from the toll express lanes on eastbound SR-91 to the toll express lanes on 1-15 Project is in planning phase. Projected Opening Year is 2035 5 1-10 HOV (SB) - 1 RTP ID# 4H01001 San Bernardino Associated Governments 1-10 HOV lane addition —from Haven (Ontario) to Ford Street (Redlands). The project is still in Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED). Opening Year 2020. 6 1-10 HOV (SB)-2 RTP ID# 4H01003 San Bernardino Associated Governments Add one HOV lane in each direction from Ford Street to Riverside County line. Opening Year 2030. 7 Interstate 10 Corridor Project San Bernardino Associated Governments HOT lanes on 1-10 from 1-605 to 1-15 (one lane each direction) by 2030, from 1-15 to SR-210 (two lanes in each direction) by 2035 and from SR-210 to Ford Street (one lane in each direction) by 2035. The circulation of the draft environmental document is scheduled for April 25, 2016 to June 8, 2016. The final environmental document is scheduled to be approved in July 2017. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-13 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 8 Regional Express/HOT Lane Network RTP ID# 7120013 Various Agencies Regional Express/HOT Lane Network. Per December 2015 draft version of SCAG's forthcoming 2016 RTP/SCS, which was released for public review and comment, this project is identified as having a completion year of 2040. 9 1-15 HOV (RIV) RTP ID# RIV071267 Riverside County Transportation Commission One HOV in each direction from SR-74 to 1-215. Project is still in planning phases. Opening Year 2035. 10 SR-241/SR-91 Connector RTP ID# ORA111207, 2T01135 Transportation Corridor Agency HOV/HOT connector: NB SR-241 to EB SR-91, WB SR-91 to SB SR-241 (one lane each direction). The project is still in PA&ED. Opening Year 2020. 11 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Project RTP ID# RIV070308 Riverside County Transportation Commission AT SR91/71 JCT: replace EB 91 to NB 71 connector with direct fly -over connector, and reconstruct the green river road EB on -ramp (EA: OF541). Construction is expected to start in FY20/21. 12 Irvine -Corona Expressway Tunnel Corridor B RTP ID# S7120008 Various Jurisdictions Tunnel from SR-133/SR-241 in Orange County to 1-15 in Riverside. This project is on hold. 13 SR-71 Corridor Improvement Project Riverside County Transportation Commission Widening of SR-71 to three lanes in each direction from SR-91 to the San Bernardino County line. Planning stages. 14 Interstate 15/Limonite Avenue Interchange Riverside County Transportation Department This project would improve the existing I-15/Limonite Avenue interchange. The improvements consist of replacing the existing overcrossing with a new eight -lane overcrossing, three through lanes in each direction plus two turn lanes, and widening of the on- and off- ramps. Currently in the PA&ED phase. Final design expected in Early/Mid 2016. Construction start expected in Summer 2017 and expected to be completed in Winter 2018. 15 Interstate 15/ Schleisman Road Interchange Riverside County Transportation Department This project would construct a new interchange at 1-15 and Schleisman Road. The project would involve the construction of northbound and southbound on- and off -ramps, including an overcrossing over Interstate 15, and an east west roadway connecting the new ramps with Hamner Avenue to the west. In addition, one northbound and one southbound auxiliary lane would be constructed along 1-15 from the new Schleisman Road overcrossing to 6th Street. Project is still in the planning stage. Construction is projected to be completed in 2020 according to the 2012— 2035 RTP, but it is anticipated that construction would not occur until sometime after 2020. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-14 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 16 1-15 Express Lanes in San Bernardino County RTP ID# 4122006 San Bernardino Associated Governments This project would construct two tolled express lanes in each direction on 1-15 from SR-60 to SR- 210, one tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 from Cantu- Galleano Ranch Road to SR-60, and one tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 from SR-210 to Duncan Canyon Road. Project is in the PA&ED phase. 17 Hamner Avenue Bridge at Santa Ana River Riverside County Transportation Department Proposed project would involve the replacement of the existing Hamner Avenue bridge with either a four- or six -lane bridge (still to be determined). Project is just starting the PA&ED phase. Construction is expected to occur around 2020. 18 Mid -County Parkway (MCP) RTP ID# RIV031218 Riverside County Transportation Commission Formally called the Mid -County Parkway (MCP). MCP has been modified to extend from SR-79 to 1-215. The portion that was previously included from I-215 to I- 15 is now called CETAP West. CETAP West would construct a controlled access six- to eight -lane expressway between 1-215 and I- 15 and would include freeway connections/ interchanges at both 1-215 and I-15. Project is scheduled to be constructed by 2035. 19 CETAP East West Corridor RTP # 3C01 MA01 Riverside County Transportation Commission New east -west transportation corridor between 1-15 on the west and 1-215 on the east. Status is unknown. Project is scheduled to be completed by 2035. 20 Corridor A RTP # 3C01 MA03 Various jurisdictions CETAP — Riverside County to Orange County —construct new intercounty transportation corridors. Two toll lanes in each direction on new facility parallel to SR-91, from SR- 241 to 1-15, with Interchange at SR-241, SR-71, and 1-15. Status is unknown. Project is scheduled to be completed by 2035. 21 The Trails Housing Project City of Eastvale Construction of 224 single-family residential units on 49 acres. Will include a neighborhood park and adjoining trail system. Project is located at the corner of Archibald Avenue and 65th Street (Tract 36423). Homes are being sold and occupied. 22 Copper Sky Housing Project City of Eastvale Residential development consisting of 224 condominium units and including a tot lot, two community facilities, a park, and one detention basin totaling 25,992 square feet on 40.01 acres. The project is located at the southeast corner of Schleisman Road and Scholar Way (Tract 34014). Homes are being sold and occupied. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-15 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 23 Eastvale (Providence) Business Park City of Eastvale Construction of 11 industrial and warehouse buildings totaling 694,770 square feet. The project is located at the southwest corner of Limonite Avenue and Archibald Avenue. Project is under construction. Road improvements under construction on Archibald Avenue. 24 Leal Master Plan City of Eastvale The Leal Master Plan will focus on a mixed use, regional lifestyle center, civic center complex, and other potential uses identified through public input. Other uses could include a hotel, a hospital, office space, and high -density housing. The project is located at the northwest corner of Limonite and Hamner. Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review. Public review ended on Monday September 7, 2015. Final EIR is being prepared. 25 Eastvale San Antonio Medical Plaza City of Eastvale Construction of two, two-story medical buildings totaling 69,562 square feet and 327 parking spaces, on a 5.4-acre project site. The project is located at southeast corner of Hamner Avenue and Limonite Avenue. Completed and open for business. 26 Mill Creek Crossing Lennar Homes City of Eastvale Construction of 122 residential lots and one future commercial lot on 39.78 acres. The project is located at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue at Chandler (Tract 29997). Homes are being sold and occupied. 27 Goodman Commerce Center at Eastvale City of Eastvale Proposed commercial/industrial development located on approximately 205 acres in the northern portion of the city. The project is located at the northeast corner of Bellgrave Avenue and Hamner Avenue. City is reviewing construction plans. Construction anticipated to start in 2016. 28 Estancia City of Eastvale Construction of 196-unit single- family residential development. The project is located at the southeast corner of Sumner Avenue and Citrus Street (Tract 36382). Homes are being sold 29 The Lodge City of Eastvale Construction of 350 single-family attached residential dwellings. The project is located north of Limonite Avenue, east of Sumner Avenue, west of Scholar Way. Homes are being sold. 30 River Road City of Eastvale Construction of 92 single-family dwellings. The project is located at southwest corner of River Road and Archibald Avenue Tract 31406). Homes are being sold. 31 Walmart City of Eastvale 24-hour Super Walmart around 177,000 square feet. Improvements will be made to area roads for accessibility. The project is located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue at Limonite Avenue. Working on the Administrative Draft EIR. EIR will be ready in 2016. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-16 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 32 KB Homes City of Eastvale Construction of 117 single-family dwellings. The project is located north of Limonite Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue, and west of Harrison Avenue. Homes are under construction. First few phases are occupied. 33 99cent Only Store City of Eastvale Retail store. The project is located at the northwest corner of Hamner Avenue at "A" Street. Approved in June 2015. Grading plan and construction drawings are being reviewed by City. 34 William Lyon Homes City of Eastvale Construction of 177 residences. The project is located at the northeast corner of Hamner Avenue at "A" Street (Future Schleisman). Homes are under construction. 35 Riverside Transmission Reliability Project (RTRP) City of Riverside Proposed project includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new, approximately 10-mile double - circuit 230,000-volt (230-kV) transmission line, a new 230-kV substation (Wildlife Substation), a new 230/69-kV substation (Wilderness substation), and five new 69-kV subtransmission line segments integrated into Riverside Public Utilities' existing subtransmission system. The project is bordered to the north by SR-60, to the west by I-15, and to the south by SR-91. Construction to start in 2017 and be completed in 2019. 36 Arco Station City of Eastvale Construction of Arco Station/restaurants. The project is located at northeast corner of Hamner Avenue and Riverside Drive. The project is under construction. 37 LBA Realty Industrial Building Project No. 14-1077 (13) City of Eastvale Located at northeast corner of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and Hamner Avenue. Project includes a 446,173 sq. ft. industrial building on (approximately 24 acres) and overflow parking. Work on the administrative draft EIR is underway. 38 Stratham Homes — Sendero, Planned Residential Development Project No. 14-1398 City of Eastvale Located at the northwest corner Limonite Avenue and Harrison Avenue. General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Planned Residential Development, and Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of approximately 44 acres into 323 residential lots and 14 lots for open space and water basins. Work on the administrative draft EIR is underway. 39 Asset Solutions Group Residential Development (Polopolus Property) Project No. 15-0576 City of Eastvale Located at Hamner Avenue and Schleisman Road. Proposal for the accommodation of approximately 125-three story detached homes to also include a right of way dedication to the City. Application was submitted to City and City has provided comments to the applicant. No dates have been established for CEQA documentation. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-17 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 40 The Ranch City of Eastvale The 120-acre project site is located north of American Heroes Park, east of the extension of Hellman Avenue, west of the San Bernardino County Flood Control Channel and immediately south and east of the City of Eastvale/City of Chino boundary. Subdivision of approximately 98 acres into four light industrial, five business park, and five commercial parcels. A Major Development Review for the development of four industrial/warehouse and two business park buildings totaling 936,000 square feet, and associated improvements. Public hearing for draft EIR was held in November 2015. City Council to adopt an Addendum to the final Environmental Impact Report in 2016. 41 Eastvale Marketplace Project No. 15-0958 City of Eastvale Proposal construction of a new neighborhood retail center with multi -tenant and single tenant buildings and associated parking facilities to be located at the northeast corner of Limonite Avenue and Sumner Avenue. Currently waiting for additional architecture and landscape submittals and an updated tentative map from the project applicant. 42 Tri-Pointe Homes City of Corona Construction of 146 single-family residential units on 21.7 acres. The project is located at the northeast corner of State Street and Foothill Boulevard. Homes are under construction. 43 Encanto Apartment Homes LLC City of Corona Construction of 354 apartment units on 20.39 acres. The project is located east of Temescal Canyon, north of Weirick Road. Homes are under construction. 44 ASTA PROPERTIES, LLC City of Corona Construction of 45 townhomes on 3.8 acres. The project is located northwest corner of Parkridge and Main Street. The project was approved by the City Council on 02/05/2014. There has been no activity on the project as of January 2015. 45 Corona Regional Medical Center Expansion City of Corona The project location is 800 South Main Street. The project site encompasses approximately 9.7 acres proposed for the phased construction of an expansion to the Corona Regional Medical Center, a medical office building, a parking structure, and renovation of existing hospital facilities for sub- acute care. The project was approved by the City Council on 09/02/2014. The developer's team is currently preparing plans, vacating streets, demolishing structures, etc. They will eventually submit plans to the State Architect's office for plan check review. 46 Griffco Land LLC (Rexco) City of Corona Construction of 125 units for multi- family residential. The project is located west of Temescal Canyon and south of Dawson Canyon Road. This project is under construction. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-18 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 47 FU Bang Group do Dos Lagos 2, LLC City of Corona Construction of a four- to five -story hotel with 116 rooms on 2.21 acres. The project is located south of Blue Springs Drive and West of Temescal Canyon Road. This project is under construction. 48 Dos Lagos Planning Area City of Corona Construction of a four-story hotel. The project is located west of Temescal Canyon Road and south of Retreat Parkway. The project has been placed on hold. 49 Corona Norco Unified School District City of Corona Subdivision of 14 acres into 23 single-family residential lots. The project is located east of Garretson Avenue and south of Santana Way. The project has been placed on hold. 50 Citrus Circle Apartments City of Corona Parcel Map for 61 affordable apartment units. The project is located at 307 South Buena Vista Avenue. The project has been completed. 51 Westliving, LLC City of Corona Construction of 110 units for assisted senior living on 4.9 acres. The project is located at 2489 California Avenue. The project has been completed. 52 Watermarke Properties City of Corona Plot plan for 453 apartment units and 72,100-square-foot retail on 15 acres. The project is located at 410 North Main Street. The project is under construction. 53 Ambersky Properties City of Corona Construction of 34,561 square -foot commercial building. The project is located at 1560 West 6th Street. The project has been completed. 54 Fiedler Group City of Corona Commercial shopping center. The project is located at the southeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Rimpau Avenue. The project has been completed. 55 Arantine Hills City of Corona Approved master plan for 276 acres of privately owned property situated off the 1-15 (at Cajalco Road) and just south of Eagle Glen Parkway. Includes 1,621 new residential units, 745,300 square feet of regional serving commercial (retail and office), industrial, and urban mixed -use (retail and residential) space, 15.2 acres in park space and 36.6 acres of protected open space located along the Bedford Canyon Wash Amended Land Use Plan has been submitted. Future actions include preparation of Initial Study by the City of Corona (to assess potential new environmental impacts beyond what was certified in the 2012 EIR) will be prepared. Creation of a Supplemental EIR will also occur in the future. 56 Armstrong & Brooks City of Corona Subdivision of 61.6 acres into 101 single-family residential lots. The project is located east of Laurel Canyon and north of Shadow Valley Canyon. Approved in July 2014 by planning commission. Construction has begun on the project. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-19 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Map ID#' Name Jurisdiction Proposed Use Status 57 Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park City of Norco Development of a 122-acre equestrian center and sports facility that would be used for various recreational uses, such as equestrian events, soccer, football, lacrosse, etc. The project is located east of Hamner Avenue and north of the Santa Ana River. Some of the sports fields have been constructed and are ready for use. 58 Armada Armstrong Road LLC City of Jurupa Valley Development of 86 single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The project is located at the northeast corner of Armstrong Road and 34th Street. TTM 36751. Project was approved by the City Council in December 2014. The applicant had proposed to sell the housing tract to DR Horton. This was approved by the City in September 2015. 59 Harmony Trails City of Jurupa Valley Construction of 176 single-family R4 lots on 30 acres. Lot sizes range from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. Located at Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Wineville Avenue. Project was approved by the City Council in December 2014. Construction to begin in 2015. Project should be completed in 2016. 60 Riverbend Master Planned Community, Lennar Homes City of Jurupa Valley Master planned residential community to be located north of the Santa Ana River, west of Dana Avenue, east of 1-15, and south of 68th street. Project would construct 464 homes. Project was approved by the City Council in December 2014. Construction has started. Refer to Figure 2-32 for location of projects. 2.1.1.2 CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL PLANS SCAG is a metropolitan planning organization that represents six counties, 190 cities, and more than 19 million residents. SCAG develops long-range solutions for regional challenges related to transportation, air quality, housing, growth, hazardous waste, and water quality. SCAG has developed strategies that specifically address growth and transportation issues, including the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) (SCAG 2013). Federal Federal Transportation Improvement Program The project is identified in the approved 2015 FTIP (Project ID: RIV071267), which includes all federally funded and regionally significant projects. The project description included in the approved 2015 FTIP is provided below: I-15 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY: CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL EXPR LNS (TEL) (2 TE EA DIR) FROM SR60 (PM 51.4) TO HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY (PM 42.9) AND CONS 2 TE LNS (1 TE EA DIR) FROM HIDDEN VALLEY PKWY (PM 42.9) TO CAJALCO RD (PM 36.8). ADVANCE SIGNAGE WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE SOUTH END BETWEEN PM 34.7 TO PM 36.8 (CAJALCO RD) AND AT THE NORTH END BETWEEN PM 51.4 (SR60) TO PM 52.28 (PM 1.3 IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-20 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use The project is consistent with the most up-to-date FTIP project description. Regional Southern California Association of Governments 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy The project is included in SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Amendment 2, which was approved on September 11, 2014. With the approval of Amendment 2, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the latest RTP. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) The Western Riverside County MSHCP, a comprehensive regional HCP, was adopted in June 2003. Major participants in the regional planning effort included, but were not limited to, Caltrans, CDFW, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Riverside County, RCTC, 14 cities, and interested individuals and groups. The purpose of the MSHCP is to develop methods and procedures that provide for development while protecting environmental resources in the western Riverside County area over a 75-year period. Caltrans signed the Implementation Agreement on December 15, 2003. Among other things, the MSHCP provides impact mitigation for future Caltrans projects on existing routes in the covered area of western Riverside County. Participation by Caltrans is intended to streamline the environmental process for future transportation projects in western Riverside County (e.g., through pre -mitigation) and save money over the long term. Local San Bernardino County General Plan —Circulation Element The 2007 San Bernardino County General Plan was adopted in March 2007 and provides land use rules and policies to unincorporated and privately owned lands within San Bernardino County. It was amended in December 2011, May 2012, and July 2013. The San Bernardino County General Plan contains policies for the overall county, as well as policies applicable only to the Valley, Mountain, and Desert Planning Regions. Only policies affecting the Valley Region are evaluated. County of Riverside General Plan —Circulation Element The 2003 County of Riverside General Plan was adopted in October 2003 and has had a number of revisions incorporated through resolutions. A comprehensive update to the general plan is underway. The approved 2003 general plan includes several policies aimed at improving transportation in the county. The strategy to coordinate with transportation planning, programming, and implementation agencies such as Caltrans, RCTC, Western Riverside Council of Governments, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the cities of Riverside County on various studies relating to freeway, high occupancy vehicle/high occupancy toll lanes, and transportation corridor planning, construction, and improvement in order to facilitate the planning and implementation of an integrated circulation system is discussed as part of the transportation management system within the circulation element of the plan. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-21 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use City of Ontario General Plan —Mobility The City of Ontario adopted its general plan in January 2010. It was amended multiple times over the next several years, with the most recent adopted amendment occurring in December 2013. City of Eastvale General Plan —Circulation Element The City of Eastvale General Plan was adopted in June 2013 and is a comprehensive visioning plan for the future of the city. City of Jurupa Valley The City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated in July 2011. As a newly incorporated city, a general plan has not been completed to date; however, the City Council directed staff to prepare an "interim" general plan in August 2014. Until such time the general plan is prepared and approved, the City of Jurupa Valley has adopted the County of Riverside General Plan as its planning and development document. Corona General Plan —Circulation Element The 2004 City of Corona General Plan presents a vision for the city's future and a strategy to make that vision a reality. Norco General Plan —Circulation Element The City of Norco General Plan was adopted at various intervals between 1976 and 2009, including the circulation element, which was adopted in March 2000. 2.1.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would be constructed and staged within the existing right of way, with the exception of the area at the Santa Ana River, which is under the jurisdiction of the City of Norco. Closing the gaps between northbound and southbound Santa Ana River bridges would not change the land use to conflict with any federal, regional, or local plans and policies. The project would not result in any short-term direct or indirect adverse impacts on plans or policies. Permanent The project would be constructed and operated in the existing right of way or permanent highway easement, with the exception of the area at the Santa Ana River bridge, where temporary construction easements would be required from the City of Norco. Table 2-2 identifies the federal, regional, and local programs, plans, and policies that would apply to the project, and project consistency with these programs, plans, or policies. Since the majority of the project would be constructed within the freeway right of way, with the exception of the area at the Santa Ana River bridge, the implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would be generally consistent with applicable federal programs, regional policies, and local programs, plans and policies. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-22 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use The project would not require the conversion of agricultural or other lands and would avoid impacts on environmental resources to the extent feasible. The project is consistent with all land use local and regional planning goals and policies that have been identified, specifically those of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Western County Highway Delivery Plan, 2015 FTIP, SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Amendment 2, and each of the cities' and counties' general plans. Therefore, no mitigation or minimization measures would be required. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative the I-15 Express Lanes project improvements would not be carried out; therefore, no direct or indirect adverse impacts on land use plans or policies would occur as a result of the No -Build Alternative. However, the No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with all goals and policies identified in regional planning goals and policies, such as the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and the 2015 FTIP. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-23 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Table 2-2. Federal, Regional, and Local Programs, Plans and Policies Consistency Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency Federal 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program The 1-15 Express Lanes Project, as currently scoped, will be included in the 2015 FTIP, which is currently in draft form (Project ID: RIV071267) and which includes all federally funded and regionally significant projects. Consistent. This document identifies the project scheduled to be constructed over the next two years, with construction beginning in 2017. Inconsistent. Under the No -Build Alternative, the 1-15 Express Lanes Project improvements would not move forward and, therefore, would be inconsistent with the FTIP. Regional Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS includes the following regional transportation goals: . Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and • goods in the region. Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional • transportation system. • Maximize the productivity of the transportation system. Consistent. These goals emphasize SCAG's priority in both people and goods movement through the region in the safest and most energy efficient way possible. The SCAG's RTP/SCS Amendment 2, which will include the 1-15 Express Lanes Project's current concept and scope, is scheduled for approval in late 2014. The project is listed in the RTP/SCS (Project ID: RIV071267) to be construction by 2020. Inconsistent. Under the No -Build Alternative, the 1-15 Express Lanes Project improvements would not move forward and, therefore, would be inconsistent with the RTP. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-24 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 1-15 improvements are included in the plan as a Covered Activity (page 7-36). Covered Activities are defined as certain activities carried out by third parties that will receive Take Authorization, provided activities are otherwise lawful. Applicable MSHCP requirements for the project can be found in Volume I, Sections 3.2.3, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2, 7.3.5, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, and 7.5.3, and Appendix C of the MSHCP document (Caltrans 2014b). Consistent The approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Natural Environment Study (December 2014) provides mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of the project to ensure consistency with the MSHCP. Additionally, a consistency review by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), USFWS, and CDFW will be performed to ensure that the project is consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP (Caltrans 2014b). Consistent. No impacts are anticipated, because no construction or alteration to the existing operation would occur under the No -Build Alternative. Therefore, no impacts would need to be mitigated as a result of the No -Build Alternative. San Bernardino County General Plan Circulation Element GOAL CI 1: The County will provide a transportation system, including public transit, which is safe, functional, and convenient; meets the public's needs; and enhances the lifestyles of County residents. Consistent. The project improves the functionality of 1-15 and surrounding roads. Inconsistent. This vital roadway would not be improved in terms of functionality or the ability to meet future demands for transportation. GOAL CI 2: The County's comprehensive transportation system will operate at regional, countywide, community, and neighborhood scales to provide connectors between communities and mobility between jobs, residences, and recreational opportunities. Consistent. The project provides improved mobility within the region's highway system for area communities. Inconsistent. Existing operational deficiencies would not be addressed to provide adequate connections. Policy CI 2.5: Work with Caltrans on mitigating the impacts of state highway projects on local communities. Consistent. The project would involve cooperation with many jurisdictions within the project limits, including the County of San Bernardino. Consistent. No impacts are anticipated, because no construction would occur under the No - Build Alternative. Therefore, no impacts would need to be mitigated as a result of highway project implementation. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-25 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency Policy CI 5.2: Protect and increase the designed Consistent. Inconsistent. roadway capacity of all vehicular thoroughfares and The project would improve mobility Under the No -Build highways. along 1-15 within the project limits by adding additional lanes to decrease congestion due to current and projected traffic volumes along the 1-15 corridor. Alternative, the improvements would not be made to meet the future capacity needs of the roadway. Conservation Element Policy CO 8.4: Minimize energy consumption attributable Consistent. Consistent. to transportation within the County. The construction of the project would assist in decreasing gasoline consumption by addressing existing congestion along 1-15 within the project limits. Existing traffic volumes exceed available highway capacity, and travel forecasts show continuing traffic growth in the 1-15 corridor. It is expected that the traffic volumes along this corridor will increase by approximately 37% Energy consumption would not be minimized because the 1-15 Express Lanes Project improvements would not be constructed. (south of SR-91) and 26% (between SR-91 and SR-60) by year 2040. As a result, the 1-15 corridor will continue to experience increased congestion and longer commute times. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-26 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element Policy C 1.1: Design the transportation system to respond to concentrations of population and employment activities. Consistent. The project would improve the functionality of 1-15 for the residents and commuters using this facility within the area of the project limits. Inconsistent. Transportation inefficiencies would continue along the corridor. Policy C 1.5: Evaluate the planned circulation system as needed to enhance the arterial highway network to respond to anticipated growth and mobility needs. Consistent. The project is expected to minimize diversions to local arterials that are anticipated to occur without the project, allowing those arterials to better handle anticipated growth and mobility needs. Inconsistent. Transportation inefficiencies would continue along the corridor. Policy C 7.4: Coordinate with transportation planning, programming and implementation agencies such as Caltrans, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Western Riverside Council of Governments, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the Cities of Riverside County on various studies relating to freeway, high occupancy vehicle/high occupancy toll lanes, and transportation corridor planning, construction, and improvement in order to facilitate the planning and implementation of an integrated circulation system. Consistent. The project involves coordination with local, regional, state, and federal agencies with regard to implementing HOT lanes. Not Applicable. Under the No -Build Alternative, no construction would occur. Therefore, no coordination would be needed with other transportation agencies. City of Ontario Mobility Policy M5-2: Land Use Compatibility with Regional Transportation Facilities. We work with LAWA, railroads, Caltrans, SANBAG, and other transportation agencies to minimize impacts. Consistent. RCTC would coordinate with local, regional, state, and federal agencies (including the City of Ontario) to minimize any potential impacts related to the construction of the project. Not Applicable. Under the No -Build Alternative, no freeway improvements would be constructed. Therefore, coordination with other transportation agencies would not be required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-27 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency City of Eastvale Land Use Policy LU-9: The City will participate in regional efforts to address issues of mobility, transportation, traffic congestion, economic development, air and water quality, and watershed and habitat management with cities, local and regional agencies, stakeholders, and surrounding jurisdictions. Consistent. RCTC would coordinate with local, regional, state, and federal agencies (including the City of Eastvale) to address issues of mobility, transportation, traffic congestion, economic development, air and water quality, and watershed and habitat management as they relate to the project. Not Applicable. Under the No -Build Alternative, no freeway improvements would be constructed. Therefore, coordination with other transportation agencies, regional and local jurisdictions, and stakeholders would not be required. Air Quality and Conservation Policy AQ-4: Attain performance goals and/or VMT reductions which are consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan. Consistent. The project is listed in the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, which takes into consideration area growth management to obtain performance goals and/or VMT reductions. Inconsistent. No Express Lanes would be constructed to obtain performance goals and/or VMT reductions. Noise Policy N-18: Natural buffers, setbacks or other noise attenuation shall be established between freeways and urban arterial roadways and adjoining noise -sensitive areas. Consistent. The project would include noise barriers where appropriate based on existing regulations and policies to minimize the increase in ambient noise as a result of the project. Not Applicable. Under the No -Build Alternative, noise levels would increase over time as a result of increased traffic in the corridor. Where noise increases occur, they would be evaluated by the City of Eastvale or other parties and natural buffers or setbacks for noise attenuation would be considered. Policy N-21: Actively participate in the development of noise abatement plans for freeways. Consistent. RCTC is coordinating with Caltrans and local jurisdictions to ensure proper noise abatement is developed for freeways in compliance with current regulations and policies. Consistent. Under the No -Build Alternative, no freeway improvements would be constructed. Therefore, no noise impacts would occur. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-28 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency City of Jurupa Valley Circulation JURAP 13.3: Consider the following regional and community wide transportation options when developing transportation improvements in Jurupa: b. Support the development of regional transportation facilities and services (such as high -occupancy vehicle lanes, express bus service, and fixed transit facilities), which will encourage the use of public transportation and ridesharing for longer distance trips. Consistent. The project is listed in the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, which addresses area Circulation Plans. In addition, the project includes additional lanes that would act as HOV lanes for 3+ users for a reduced fee or potentially free, which encourages ridesharing. Not Applicable Under the No -Build Alternative, no transportation improvements would be proposed; therefore, coordination with the City of Jurupa would not be required. Norco General Plan Circulation Policy 1.12: Support, where feasible, the regional TDM strategies developed by the RCTC. TDM strategies are listed as the following five categories: • Enhance Vehicle Occupancy. • Shift auto travel to transit. • Shift auto travel to non -motorized transportation modes. • Shift travel demand to "nonpeak" periods or eliminate trips through alternative work -hour programs and telecommuting. • Maximize the efficient use of parking resources through Parking Management. Consistent. The RCTC 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program lists Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as carpools/vanpools/park-n- rides to reduce single occupancy vehicle travel (RCTC 2011). The tolled express lanes would be consistent with the TDM strategy, as HOV 3+ would be eligible to use the express lanes a reduced rate or potentially for free. Not Applicable Under the No -Build Alternative, the 1-15 Express Lanes Project improvements would not occur; therefore, the application of TDM strategies would not apply. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-29 Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use Plan or Program Name Policy Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Consistency No -Build Alternative Consistency Noise Policy 2.2.4: The City should continue to work with Caltrans for the construction of sound barrier walls along the east side of the freeway adjacent to residential properties. Consistent. The project would include noise barriers as appropriate to minimize the increase in ambient noise as a result of the project based on existing regulations and policies. Not Applicable. Under the No -Build Alternative, no noise impacts would occur. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-30 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Land Use 2.1.1.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES As shown in Table 2-2, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not conflict with any applicable federal, state, regional, or local programs, plans, or policies. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-31 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities 2.1.2 Parks and Recreational Facilities Information used in this section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015a). Public parks, trails, and other recreational facilities that were identified in the CIA as being located within 0.5 mile of the project limits are presented in Figures 2-5 and 2-6 and described in Table 2-3. Table 2-3. Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 mile of the Project Limits Jurisdiction Name Location Approximate Distance from the Project Type Amenities Private Temescal Driving Range (Private) 23100 Temescal Canyon Road, Corona 0.50 mile Golf facility 11-acre private golf driving facility. Dos Lagos Golf Course 4507 Cabot Drive, Corona 0.30 mile Golf facility 18-hole championship daily fee course, part of a 534-acre mixed used development that is open for daily public play. Features views of the Cleveland National Forest, restored waterways, wetlands, and the hillside. City of Corona Park Development Division City Park 930 East 6th Street, Corona 0.40 mile Park A 20.54-acre community park including a volleyball court, soccer field, basketball court, swimming pool, horseshoe pit, a skate park, children's play equipment, restrooms, a picnic area, drinking fountains, and bicycle racks. El Cerrito Sports Park 7500 El Cerrito Road, Corona Immediately adjacent to 1-15 right of way Park Approximately 26 acres. Amenities include four lighted baseball fields, three lighted multi -purpose fields, two lighted basketball courts, two lighted tennis courts, a walking path, two restroom and concession buildings, a playground, and picnic area. Citrus Park 1250 Santana Way, Corona 0.46 mile Park A 20.01-acre Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible park that contains picnic areas, playground equipment, softball fields, restrooms, and drinking fountains. From May 1 to September 30, the park also opens a "Splash Zone" for summertime recreation. Chase Park 1415 E. Chase Drive, Corona 0.46 mile Park A 5.21-acre park with playground equipment. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-32 Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities Jurisdiction Name Location Approximate Distance from the Project Type Amenities Rimpau Park 1156 E. Ontario Avenue, Corona 0.50 mile Park 4.67-acres with playground equipment, restrooms, drinking fountains, picnic and barbeque area, and covered shelter. Private Cresta Verde Golf Course (Private) 1295 Cresta Road, Corona 0.06 mile Golf course 18-hole golf course. Norco Department of Parks, Recreation & Community Services Neal Snipes Park Hamner Avenue and 5th Street, Norco 0.23 mile Park This facility includes a 1/3-mile fitness track, three tot lots, ADA- accessible restroom, open grass areas, picnic areas, and shelter. Community Center Park Alhambra Street and Cedar Avenue, Norco 0.26 mile Park Approximately 8 acres. Amenities include a lighted baseball diamond, tot lot, picnic shelters, restroom facilities, community pool, open grass areas, and picnic tables. The community center has a gymnasium and meeting rooms. Clark Field 1740 Detroit Street, Norco 0.10 mile Park/Field Facilities include a lighted field for softball, soccer, and flag football. Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park (Proposed) Citrus Street and Hamner Avenue, Norco 0.10 mile Equestrian Sports Facility Proposed facility is approximately 122 acres with the following proposed amenities: lawn areas, sand surfaces, barn and event building, temporary barns, lighting, camping and recreational vehicle hookups, reception hall, onsite offices, and storage/maintenance facilities. River Trails Park At the 1-15 crossing of the Santa Ana River Immediately adjacent Equestrian Park This approximately 250-acre park is located along the Santa Ana River, including adjacent to the 1-15 bridge crossing structures. The park includes several user -pioneered equestrian trails, and, in the vicinity of 1-15, its purpose is primarily to provide the public with a designated trail system for equestrian activity. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-33 Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities Jurisdiction Name Location Approximate Distance from the Project Type Amenities Policy Advisory Group (composed of members of local and regional agencies) and multiple jurisdictions, including San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange County, and Norco Department of Parks, Recreation & Community Services Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway Planned elements of the trail are proposed to be constructed in River Trails Park. Trailhead is two miles east of 1-15, but trail has not yet been developed within the project area. Trailhead is two miles east of 1-15 Trail/ Parkway 110-mile trail and bikeway corridor between Big Bear Lake and the Pacific Ocean. The trail passes through 14 incorporated cities in three counties. The proposed trail consists of both Class! bike paths and natural surface trails. 43 miles of the planned 110 miles of trail have been constructed. Within the project limits, a natural -surface element of the trail is planned under the Santa Ana River bridge adjacent to the south bridge abutment. This trail segment is currently unfunded. Jurupa Community Services District Eastvale Jogging/ Running/ Bike Trail (Proposed) Citrus Street and Hamner Avenue Located north west of the Santa Ana River bridge. Proposed Running/ Bike Trail 1.25-mile trail to follow the Santa Ana River Road to Hamner Avenue, and proposed to feature a cinder running track, a multi - purpose trail (jogging, running, and bike), as well as a horse trail. Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District Limonite Meadows Park 6596 Pat's Ranch Road, Jurupa Valley 0.21 mile Park Facilities include a playground, grassy areas, and picnic tables. Moonriver Tot Lot 6859 Moonriver Street, Eastvale 0.37 mile Park Facilities include a playground, grassy areas, and picnic tables. Delaware Greenbelt 6989 Delaware River Drive, Eastvale 0.26 mile Open space Facilities include grassy areas and picnic tables. Vernola Park 5211 Wineville Avenue, Jurupa Valley 0.42 mile Park Facilities include a playground, grassy areas, picnic tables, ball fields, outdoor basketball courts, restrooms, and a picnic shelter. Cambria Park 5471 Harmony Drive, Eastvale 0.37 mile Park Facilities include a playground, grassy areas, picnic tables, and a picnic shelter. Harmony Park 5641 Treasure Drive, Eastvale 0.44 mile Park Facilities include grassy areas, outdoor basketball courts, sand volleyball courts, and picnic tables. Sources: City of Corona Department of Water and Power 2014; City of Norco 2014; Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District 2014; Jurupa Community Services District 2014. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-34 1CNifco R Glen Rd Drornon.wSr do: „9V 0.5 Miles " C �.�4ancho Cur-amonga qr,E 1tana Rialto 1`) Qntal'Io a - 1NOf INO NI IGNTS - M 4 toDAR 71 - ULEY `R�..+;p:- - - thnat 0({Gt �YWI 'c-.-. INDA Ns tA •Ord ge C ``0 G a A Il l Eretnavdino GRAND TERRA:i. c.E�{,AV ON 5UDIi?Atix r.t A�`Flabol, ,} RIversi Aapo„ Ca)o,ca R< - - - Counties • • • Trails Within a Half Mile n Parks Within a Half Mile Project Advance Signage Lane Improvement Limits Dos Lagos Golf Course .40 r 4 i Temescal Driving Range • Figure 2-5, Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 Mile of the Project (Southern Portion) Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-36 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 1 14 ..9 0 • ev lii B1A,na St - •aPof o, i :Y dth SI Oid 41ir1 qd r gray, Rd irro., Rd ' a Lar. a pueb0 e - .. 0 0.25 0.5 .' IMMENEM Mils um Rancho Cucamonga V E FI R E____u PLAN iASi PI_ . a-On-taria ' I VowNlit� G @. 1 77 T chin❑ fp or r ge ❑ve a Ana itana Rialto ;an Berh �f dlPtl FwwG L GRANA TERRAG VON f laholf , f, 'AxpPfl o n a Bhd lA r X rysi M A. Gala,c� F• - - - Counties • • • Trails Within a Half Mile n Parks Within a Half Mile Project Advance Signage Lane Improvement Limits City - Park .9' *DV f p -k • 4.• Ta,nfp,d Lts ti^ L y c.ka •�4af ... ' � c Cresta Verde Gaff Course ./ a J Fy R.V�ruk � F�irripau Park C i Park Figure 2-5, Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 Miles of the Proposed Project (Southern Portion) Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-38 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project c C f iu;=mwnim Delaware Greenbelt Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park (Proposed) Eastvale Jogging/Running/Bike! • • • •• Trail (Proposed) ■ • • • • •• • • _ •. •••••••■•■, •. • • • �-•• • • • ••• •• •• • • • • •• E C • C,.' • ' Santa Ana River Trail ••' • • .0. t a ; (Proposed) - 1 a Raw I J: ; Commune Center Park Neil Snipes Park Nwrammn Lake ,,,,a.. Rancho' e..ucamonga :. VVSNE. ...r,, 1 tall a Rialto MOI:Tr• i'.�� Ca`RtSrla �R�++u z�rsRnu " !, y.ow FFF F17d4� N� RILLS .µpail �{1 V f `�I rs r .} • r +A.� f � M 1 c'} IYN! kpors 1Y1 _ s o* Co ona �ha w �w .Calal[n rirl %qe ove a Ana l ler E1 Su S �I IH❑ - — - Counties • • • Trails Within a Half Mile 0 Parks Within a Half Mile Project Advance Signage Lane Improvement Limits c: • a 7th 5! De!lroli 5t Carabin tjj 15 6Lh8t ; EVneififit -Gardro Grove R ' yl Klrxjmah ! Allude Ln d a z Er Ale Ln .w Cresta Verd - Golf Course Figure 2-6, Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 Miles of the Proposed Project (Northern Portion) Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-40 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project ttv 4:z r,r3v Zarie ,Daybreak Di coaksiO; Jo • 0 fa rt if Van re: r'S - , • w i .4 J 4 0 -C • N-- o 4* c . _-!•••-• • F vfr- •rs .• r.•••• Ct• . o . c 0 ' . I" or rs _ ' e; > 7_ a' 0 2 c't 1361. cli-A .1-1 el • Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-42 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project eta r. ar. Argra. iIk a •, .111 ge ove a Ana Jmongo Itana Rialto ona - 'P, +.• • 1 ' 1. 'i.e.' r,n,rn i1 El i••• • - - - Counties • • • Trails Within a Half Mile 0 Parks Within a Half Mile Project Advance 5ignage Lane Improvement Limits :=.+4=7urupa S Figure 2-6, Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities within 0.5 Mile of the Project (Northern Portion) Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-44 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities Section 4(t) Resources Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 United States Code (USC) 303, declares that "it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites." Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary [of Transportation] may approve a transportation program or project ... requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if: • There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and • The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in developing transportation projects and programs that use lands protected by Section 4(f). If historic sites are involved, then coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is also needed. The publicly owned parks and recreation areas identified in Table 2-3 were evaluated relative to the requirements of Section 4(f). That evaluation is presented in Appendix B. 2.1.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary A strip of River Trails Park property 50 feet wide both west and east of the edge of the Santa Ana River bridge structure would be used for temporary construction access and activity. Immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River waterway, the temporary construction easement would be larger to accommodate bridge pier construction in the active waterway, including any necessary water diversion. Bridge pier construction would likely include both dewatering and water diversion. Access to informally developed equestrian trails within the temporary construction easement would be temporarily closed for bridge construction. Trail users would be directed to detours around the construction area during this period. For those trail users desiring to cross to the opposite side of the Santa Ana River bridge, detours would likely be along Norco city streets. At the conclusion of construction activities at River Trails Park, park property within the temporary construction easements would be re -contoured similar to its existing condition and reseeded with a native seed mix appropriate to the Santa Ana River. Temporary indirect impacts related to air quality and noise could also occur for park users; however, because areas of active construction would be inaccessible to park users, any construction -related noise and air quality impacts are anticipated to be minor and temporary. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-45 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities Implementation of measure PRF-1 would help to minimize temporary construction impacts associated with temporary closure of informal trails at River Trails Park. No direct adverse short- term impacts on recreation would result during the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Construction activities would result in indirect impacts related to noise and equipment emissions at nearby park and recreation facilities. However, these indirect construction -related dust and noise impacts are considered temporary and would be minimized through measure AQ-1, referenced in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, and measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 in Section 2.2.7, Noise. Therefore, no adverse indirect short-term impacts on recreation are anticipated during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Permanent The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would result in no permanent impacts to River Trails Park in the City of Norco. Water diversion features would be temporary and would be removed prior to completion of construction. Cofferdams, settling basins and any other temporary dewatering features would be removed prior to completion of construction. Areas where access roads were developed for Santa Ana River bridge construction would be re -graded to mimic existing conditions at the completion of bridge construction. There are planned elements of the Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway in the project area; however, their construction has not been scheduled and is not anticipated to occur prior to construction of the project. The project would have no impact on proposed elements of the Santa Ana River Trail within the project area. Portions of the Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park Project have been constructed. The project is anticipated to be constructed within existing right of way and would have no permanent impact on the Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park or its features. El Cerrito Sports Park is located on El Cerrito Road in Corona and is adjacent to the I-15 right of way. The project is anticipated to be constructed within the existing right of way and would have no permanent impact on the park or its features. Section 4(0 Properties The publicly owned parks and recreation areas within 0.5 mile of the project area, identified in Table 2-3, were evaluated relative to the requirements of Section 4(f). That evaluation is presented in Appendix B and concludes that no permanent use of any property protected by Section 4(f) would occur as a result of the project. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative the I-15 Express Lanes Project improvements would not be carried out. Therefore, no existing and planned parks or recreation facilities in the area would be affected and no direct or indirect adverse impacts on recreation and Section 4(f) resources would occur. However, the No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with all goals and policies identified in regional planning goals and policies. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-46 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Parks and Recreational Facilities 2.1.2.2 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would result in short-term impacts to one recreational resource in the project area, specifically River Trails Park. Measure PRF-1 would minimize short-term impacts under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). In addition, construction activities associated with the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would result in indirect impacts related to noise and equipment emissions at nearby park and recreation facilities. To minimize potential short-term adverse impacts, measure AQ-1, referenced in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, and measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 in Section 2.2.7, Noise, would be implemented during the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). PRF-1: Trail Detours. During construction, detours will be provided at River Trails Park. Continuous and safe access to other portions of the park and to the opposite sides of the Santa Ana River bridge will be maintained during construction activities. A meeting will be held with the City of Norco regarding the project's temporary impacts to River Trails Park before construction begins. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-47 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Growth 2.1.3 Growth 2.1.3.1 REGULATORY SETTING The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which established the steps necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, require evaluation of the potential environmental effects of all proposed federal activities and programs. This provision includes a requirement to examine indirect consequences, which may occur in areas beyond the immediate influence of a proposed action and at some time in the future. The CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.8) refer to these consequences as indirect impacts. Indirect impacts may include changes in land use, economic vitality, and population density, which are all elements of growth. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also requires the analysis of a project's potential to induce growth. The CEQA guidelines (Section 15126.2[d]) require that environmental documents "...discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment..." First Cut Screening Caltrans, in conjunction with FHWA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developed a guidance document titled Guidance for Preparers of Growth -Related, Indirect Impact Analyses (May 2006). The following information is based on that guidance. The first step in determining the likely growth potential for a roadway improvement project is to perform a "first cut screening," which focuses on answering the following questions: • Does the project have the potential to change accessibility? • If the project has the potential to change accessibility, would the project type, project location, and growth pressure potentially influence growth? • Is project -related growth reasonably foreseeable as defined by NEPA? • If project -related growth is reasonably foreseeable, could the project impact resources of concern? Information used in this section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015a). Growth inducement is defined as the relationship between the project and growth within the project study area. The relationship can be seen as either facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. Construction of a new or improved highway project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth by creating conditions that attract additional residents or new economic activity. In general, a highway project may impact the overall growth in the area studied, the location of growth within the area, and the rate of growth. A highway project may also remove an obstacle to growth by providing new access, more direct access, or an improved level of service (LOS) on an existing facility. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-48 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Growth Many factors other than a project's construction affect the amount, location, and rate of growth in a project study area, including: • Market demand for new development. • The availability of other access, existing roads, or planned roads. • Developable land. • National and regional economic trends. • The availability of other infrastructure, such as water and sewer systems. • Governmental policies. • Climate. Regional Setting The County of Riverside has grown very rapidly since 2000, with an increase in population from 1.5 million in 2000 to almost 2.2 million in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000; 2012a). Population growth projections developed for SCAG's 2012-2035 RTP/SCS indicate that population in Riverside County is expected to more than double between 2000 and 2035. San Bernardino County is expected to grow by over 34 percent by 2035. According to the American Community Survey, Table B01003, Riverside County is the fourth most populated county in California, with a population of 2,192,982 in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a). San Bernardino County's population was 2,041,092 in 2012. Table 2-4 shows the recent population trends of Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and the cities of Ontario, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Corona. Riverside County has grown very rapidly since 2000 and is expected to continue this rapid growth from 2012 through 2035 (over 50 percent). San Bernardino County has grown 19 percent since 2000, but will see much greater growth between 2012 and 2035 (over 34 percent). The City of Ontario experienced less growth since 2000 as compared to the other jurisdictions, but is estimated to see substantial growth between 2012 and 2035 (86 percent). The City of Norco is expecting the least amount of growth between 2012 and 2035 (7 percent). Population growth is an important factor in determining future travel demand. Substantial increases in population, housing, and employment, as projected by SCAG in its 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, result in greater demand for transportation facilities and services. Increased travel demand results in congestion on roadways if capacity does not keep up with the demand. I-15 between Cajalco Road and the SR-60 has been identified as a corridor that needs additional capacity to address existing and projected demands from the growth and development that is currently taking place in communities along the 1-15 corridor, and that is expected to continue. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-49 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Growth Table 2-4. Population Trends Jurisdiction 2000a 2012b 2035 Projected % Change 2000-2012 °/a Change 2012-2035 Riverside County 1,545,387 2,192,982 3,324,000 41.9% 51.6% San Bernardino County 1,709,434 2,041,092 2,750,000 19.4% 34.7% City of Ontario 158,007 165,260 307,600 4.6% 86.1 % City of Eastvale n/ad 59,030 68,300 n/ad 15.7% City of Jurupa Valley n/ad 97,673 126,000 n/ad 29.0% City of Norco 24,157 27,095 32,700 12.2% 7.1 % City of Corona 124,966 153,644 164,600 22.9% 15.7% Sources a U.S. Census Bureau 2000. b U.S. Census Bureau 2012a. ° SCAG 2012. d This data not available, because the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley were not incorporated in 2000. According to the Circulation and Community Mobility Element of the County of Riverside General Plan, over the past 70 years: Riverside's growth has resulted in many beneficial effects, principally the development of industries and businesses that provide jobs and economic stability, creation of housing units affordable to a broad range of household incomes, the growth of educational institutions and the vibrancy that results from a diverse, multi -ethnic community However, the same transportation network has also created adverse side effects: traffic congestion due to regional travel patterns, increased pollutant emissions, dispersed land use patterns and the stress of commuting. This Circulation and Community Mobility Element recognizes the ability of our transportation network to serve our needs and shape our community in positive ways, and to allow us to effectively use alternatives to the private automobile to reach our destinations within Riverside and the region. Similarly, the San Bernardino County General Plan indicates that substantial growth is forecast for San Bernardino County for the current and the future decades. Growth in both Riverside and San Bernardino counties has resulted in profound effects on the ability of these counties to finance, deliver, and maintain adequate infrastructure and community service facilities that are adequate to support their growing populations. Thus, the project was designed in response to the large infrastructure needs throughout both Riverside and San Bernardino counties. For the counties and cities directly affected by the project, adequate circulation is a critical element for both social and economic development. There is a variety of existing and planned land uses within the project area, including residential, commercial, industrial, mixed -use, and open space (see Table 2-1). As described in Section 2.1.1, Land Use, the project is identified in the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and 2015 FTIP as a planned and programmed project. The project is consistent with facilitating planned growth. While the project may result in a change in travel patterns for some drivers in the area, as many may choose to use I-15 after the completion of the express lanes, the project itself would not cause development to occur in the region. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-50 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Growth Project Area Setting The continuing growth and development in the immediate area surrounding the project limits is reasonably anticipated to result in increased traffic demands and congestion, longer commute times, increased energy consumption, and associated impacts that are typically related to congestion. Continuing growth and development would also contribute to the operational degradation of the freeway mainline, local interchanges, and the adjacent local arterials. According to the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report (Caltrans 2014a), as a result of the existing and projected congestion of I-15, by the year 2040 travel speeds are expected to decrease and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) are expected to increase. Drivers attempting to enter and exit I-15 at interchanges would experience delays and congested conditions, which would spread onto the local roadway networks. In addition to automobile use, I-15 is part of the national truck network. As described in the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report, truck traffic on I-15 is expected to increase during non -peak hours (Caltrans 2014a). Extended peak -hour congestion conditions on I-15 would also be expected, resulting in increased traffic diversions onto the local arterial networks to avoid increasing freeway delays as well as increased truck density during non -peak hours. Longer durations of congested operations would be expected to interfere with goods movement, further erode automobile and bus service travel time reliability, and decrease safety in the vicinity of the project. 2.1.3.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Temporary The project would generate construction -related jobs that would benefit the local area. It is anticipated that the majority of project construction workers would reside within or near the project area. The temporary jobs generated by construction of the project are not anticipated to alone result in a demand for additional housing or cause unplanned growth in the project area. No direct or indirect project construction impacts related to growth are expected to occur. Permanent As described above, the regional project area has experienced rapid population, housing, and employment growth in recent decades. This growth is associated with existing and future land uses, development, and economic growth. The region is projected to continue to experience population growth, which is expected to occur with or without implementation of the project. Based on the criteria for performing a "first cut screening" as described above, the likely growth potential for the project is analyzed below. • Does the project have the potential to change accessibility? Because I-15 is a major route for the transportation of people, goods, and services throughout the region, the project would improve I-15 to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand in the project area through improvements to the operational performance of I- 15. The project would not modify local or regional access to and/or from I-15. The project is designed to improve existing and projected congestion rather than create a new route to an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-51 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Growth area not currently served by major transportation routes. These planned improvements would promote improved operations and safety along the I-15 corridor. The project is consistent with the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and the goals and policies of the applicable planning documents of the various jurisdictions that comprise the project study area. The project is intended to address existing and projected traffic congestion within the project study area, and it is not expected to result in any changes to land use. No developable land areas would be made more accessible by the project, and the project would not open new areas to development or lead to changes in land use and density. Although the project would widen a portion of I-15, widening activities would occur entirely within the existing right of way. Because the project is anticipated to accommodate existing and future travel demand in the corridor related to existing and planned growth approved by local jurisdictions and not contribute to unplanned growth in the area, the project is not considered growth -inducing. Thus, no direct or indirect long-term impacts on growth are anticipated with the implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). • If the project has the potential to change accessibility, would the project type, project location, and growth pressure potentially influence growth? Because accessibility is not anticipated to change as a result of implementation of the project, the project type, project location, and growth pressure would not influence growth. • Is project -related growth reasonably foreseeable as defined by NEPA? Because the project is anticipated to accommodate existing and future travel demand in the corridor related to existing and planned growth approved by local jurisdictions and not contribute to unplanned growth in the area, project -related growth is not reasonably foreseeable as defined by NEPA. The project is not considered growth -inducing. • If project -related growth is reasonably foreseeable, could the project impact resources of concern? Because project -related growth is not anticipated as a result the project, the project would not result in growth -related reasonably foreseeable impacts on resources of concern. 2.1.3.3 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE The project is proposed to help accommodate existing and planned local development, as well as appropriate management of projected population growth within the region. With the No -Build Alternative, planned growth within the region would not be accommodated, travel speeds on I-15 would continue to deteriorate, congestion levels and accidents occurrences would increase, and roadway safety would decrease. Therefore, direct and indirect adverse long-term impacts would result under the No -Build Alternative. Based on the above "First Cut Screening Analysis," no further analysis with respect to growth is required for this project. No measures are required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-52 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts 2.1.4 Community Impacts 2.1.4.1 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COHESION Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure that all Americans have safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]). The Federal Highway Administration in its implementation of NEPA (23 United States Code [USC] 109[h]) directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest. This requires taking into account adverse environmental impacts, such as destruction or disruption of human -made resources, community cohesion, and the availability of public facilities and services. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an economic or social change by itself is not to be considered a significant effect on the environment. However, if a social or economic change is related to a physical change, then social or economic change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. Since this project would result in physical change to the environment, it is appropriate to consider changes to community character and cohesion in assessing the significance of the project's effects. Affected Environment Information used in this section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015a). Data sources in the CIA included the 2010 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2010), the 2012 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2012c), and SCAG's 2035 growth projections included in the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. A community represents a population whose members are rooted in a defined geographic place and whose daily lives involve contact with and dependencies on other community members. Such contacts and dependencies may be shared at public facilities such as schools, common paths of travel, use of daily shopping areas and services, or by common social characteristics that are conducive to establishing formal or informal organizations or activities. Community cohesion is the degree to which residents have a "sense of belonging" to their neighborhood or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, or institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. In general, the impacts of transportation projects can be more disruptive to areas characterized by cohesive communities due to the linear, and potentially dissecting, nature of many projects. Some specific indicators of community cohesion include: • Ethnicity. Ethnically homogenous areas are often highly cohesive because the community is often linked through common traditions, values, and language. • Income and Poverty. Lifestyle choices that prompt interaction and build community, such as schooling and education, shopping, employment, recreation, community service utilization and other activities are often determined by financial status. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-53 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts • Age. Areas with larger populations of the elderly and stay-at-home parents tend to be more cohesive because these groups are oftentimes more active in their communities. • Occupancy. Areas with high vacancy rates are less likely to have a strong sense of cohesion. • Housing Tenure. There tends to be a stronger sense of cohesion in areas where residents have lived there for longer periods of time. • Homeownership. Purchasing a home is making an investment in a community, and homeowners are more likely to be active in the community leading to greater cohesion in areas with high home ownership rates. • Household Size. Single -person households tend to correlate with lower cohesion compared to communities composed of households with two or more people. • Employment and Income. Employment status can lead to community cohesion through interaction at work as well as through lifestyle choices associated with income. • Business Activity. Community character is often built by frequent interaction with neighbors, which can frequently occur at business centers while shopping, dining, or working. • Community Services and Facilities. Schools, community centers, and other public facilities are important to neighborhood identity and serve as important gathering and meeting facilities for communities. The study area for community impacts includes the area within the project limits that would be directly affected, and the populations and communities most likely to experience the potential impacts of fragmentation from physical improvements associated with the project. The study area and population densities for each of the census tracts evaluated as part of the CIA are shown in Figure 2-7. The census tracts in the study area fall within multiple jurisdictions, including the cities of Ontario, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Corona. The City of Ontario is located in San Bernardino County, and the other cities are located within Riverside County. These jurisdictions are also examined to establish a context for comparison of distinct community characteristics that may be indicative of a community with strong cohesion. Ethnic and Racial Demographics The ethnic and racial demographic characteristics of the communities and census tracts located within the study area are shown in Table 2-5. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-54 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project ac onto lair CCIi G! PAR., yg f Mi Si • W ldtM Q�' no E"h Rhd t' 127 rd - O falirnisi \ - Ai.. 1- n v y G 1Arn oric1L1dZ 10A177 1.14 !'�lol�r� R.1 In RQ1,'nim�n Mission Blvd y rnIea Dr Chino. C ►» s t CCIe Arr tx Los Set ran os • • • :000s �i �r S U Fih.r�vas w Nrw MODEL COI.ONv (0.61) Ir r 1 l 1 i I 'i 406.07 (1.77) � t�INW Mira Loma LH.plli to Am • � +i M 1 (10.66) �(2.67) i 1 406.16 1 (3.64) 407.02 i (3.56) 1 466.01 408.12 — i1d7. A— (8.09) (4.11) 408.13 (2.59) 466.02 (1.96) (3.14) 408.09 �(5.67) _ t moworl Blvd Sunnyslope 'Glen Avon .z. To • Pedle 41S - 482 (0.60) 416 (7.69)� 418.13_/ (15.16) 418.09 419.09 (8.69) 418.10 (2,33) (6.48) • • st'A Haut 481 •� (0.39) • Project Advance 5ignage Lane Improvement Limits — Counties Tracts by Population Density (People/Acre) 0.00- 0.99 [ - 3.99 14 - 6.99 7 - 9.99 ■ 10+ • • t • 1 • SANTIAGO CANYON (9.29) Axe sxupa alley 0- j.4.412!rw. •L AWN -+.. "�rre RMP. AnA r A.� A• .. l P ^, a\ ,AIIL+NGTQN 5[H1TH' 414.09 (1.43) 419.11 (0.59) i sod Rubidoux• 0 i GPANI1 Arlington Ave r' i ' .Iafr 91) Riverside J.121. AMAIN. tAwnNdLIA4;- CE EII VionA r_ , f CArsP BLANCA' _IP All LI r41+r1N iiE16/4 'S4- "••ro 1{,AIE3lEh111� t`. - An �, a Miles Figure 2-7, Population density of Study Area Census Tracts Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-56 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Table 2-5. Race and Ethnicity Breakdown Jurisdiction/ Census Tract White Alone, Non- Hispanic Black or African American Alone, Non- Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native Alone, Non- Hispanic Asian Alone, Non- Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone, Non- Hispanic Some Other Race Alone, Non- Hispanic Two or More Races, Non- Hispanic Hispanic or Latino (any race) Total Population Riverside County 39.7% 6.0% 0.5% 5.8% 0.3% 0.2% 2.2% 45.5% 2,189,641 San Bernardino County 33.3% 8.4% 0.4% 6.1% 0.3% 0.2% 2.1% 49.2% 2,035,210 Ontario 18.2% 5.9% 0.2% 4.9% 0.3% 0.2% 1.3% 69.0% 163,924 Eastvale 23.7% 9.2% 0.2% 23.8% 0.3% 0.2% 2.7% 40.0% 53,668 Jurupa Valley a -- -- -- -- -- Norco 56.4% 6.9% 0.6% 3.1 % 0.2% 0.1% 1.7% 31.1 % 27,063 Corona 38.1% 5.5% 0.3% 9.6% 0.3% 0.2% 2.4% 43.6% 152,374 Study area 38.8% 6.7% 0.3% 10.3% 0.3% 0.2% 2.3% 41.2% 136,251 Riverside 406.07 26.8% 9.3% 0.2% 12.9% 0.4% 0.2% 2.4% 47.9% 9,317 Riverside 406.15 22.9% 10.0% 0.2% 22.8% 0.7% 0.2% 2.9% 40.3% 9,024 Riverside 406.16 20.8% 10.9% 0.1% 29.3% 0.1% 0.2% 2.6% 35.9% 7,610 Riverside 407.01 68.9% 1.0% 0.4% 2.5% 0.2% 0.1% 2.2% 24.7% 2,248 Riverside 407.02 65.0% 0.9% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.1% 1.3% 30.7% 2,746 Riverside 407.03 66.2% 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 0.1% 0.3% 2.8% 27.5% 2,780 Riverside 408.09 34.3% 6.5% 0.3% 12.7% 0.3% 0.1% 2.1% 43.8% 3,353 Riverside 408.12 59.2% 1.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 1.3% 36.9% 3,480 Riverside 408.13 55.8% 3.0% 0.4% 9.0% 0.2% 0.1% 2.5% 29.0% 6,080 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-57 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Jurisdiction/ Census Tract White Alone, Non- Hispanic Black or African American Alone, Non- Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native Alone, Non- Hispanic Asian Alone, Non- Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone, Non- Hispanic Some Other Race Alone, Non- Hispanic Two or More Races, Non- Hispanic Hispanic or Latino (any race) Total Population Riverside 414.09 42.1 % 6.9% 0.2% 15.5% 0.2% 0.3% 2.6% 32.2% 14,898 Riverside 414.10 4.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 94.1 % 3,288 Riverside 415 7.2% 2.3% 0.5% 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 87.3% 2,053 Riverside 416 10.3% 2.2% 0.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 84.6% 6,230 Riverside 418.09 45.5% 6.3% 0.4% 7.7/0 0.5% 0.1% 2.4% 37.2% 5,834 Riverside 418.10 50.1% 6.4% 0.1% 11.4% 0.7% 0.2% 3.4% 27.8% 5,665 Riverside 418.13 27.4% 3.2% 0.4% 1.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.9% 65.9% 6,698 Riverside 419.09 42.2% 1.7% 0.3% 1.8% 0.2% 0.3% 1.1 % 52.4% 4,990 Riverside 419.10 50.5% 5.4% 0.2% 6.7% 0.2% 0.0% 3.1% 33.9% 6,342 Riverside 419.11 48.7% 7.2% 0.3% 14.2% 0.3% 0.1% 3.2% 26.0% 10,258 Riverside 466.01 31.2% 31.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 35.7% 4,888 Riverside 466.02 63.6% 1.0% 0.2% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 2.1 % 31.2% 3,712 Riverside 481 55.2% 5.7% 0.2% 12.0% 0.2% 0.2% 3.4% 23.2% 6,404 Riverside 482 34.8% 8.3% 0.4% 14.7% 0.1% 0.0% 3.2% 38.6% 4,301 San Bernardino 127 27.7% 9.9% 0.1% 7.9% 0.1% 0.0% 2.8% 51.4% 4,052 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. Notes: a 2010 Decennial Census Data not available for Jurupa Valley; Decennial census data was used for this table because it is the Caltrans standard data set for discussion of minority populations. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-58 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Income and Poverty Income and poverty status can also be defining factors of a community's character and cohesion because lifestyle choices that tend to prompt interaction and build community -such as schooling and education, shopping, employment, recreation, community service utilization, and other activities -are often determined by financial status. Table 2-6 shows the median household income and percent of the population below the poverty level for the study area and each of the jurisdictions and tracts in the study area, according to 2008-2012 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Table 2-6. Median Household Income and Population below Poverty Level Jurisdiction/Census Tract Median Household Income' Percent of Population Below Poverty Levelb Riverside County $57,096 15.6% San Bernardino County $54,750 17.6% City of Ontario $54,994 16.4% City of Eastvale $109,841 3.6% City of Jurupa Valley $55,516 16.1% City of Norco $82,074 9.9% City of Corona $78,982 9.9% Study area $80,613 16.9% Riverside 406.07 $83,043 15.8% Riverside 406.15 $107,517 7.4% Riverside 406.16 $109,601 5.1% Riverside 407.01 $92,622 8.1 % Riverside 407.02 $56,719 30.0% Riverside 407.03 $87,917 14.8% Riverside 408.09 $80,285 15.4% Riverside 408.12 $72,862 11.1% Riverside 408.13 $95,231 11.3% Riverside 414.09 $95,639 16.5% Riverside 414.10 $40,903 56.1% Riverside 415 $42,670 52.3% Riverside 416 $35,093 45.7% Riverside 418.09 $62,917 17.2% Riverside 418.10 $131,953 3.2% Riverside 418.13 $44,242 35.1 % Riverside 419.09 $73,125 22.9% Riverside 419.10 $76,250 17.5% Riverside 419.11 $97,078 5.6% Riverside 466.01 $73,819 16.1% Riverside 466.02 $81,136 22.2% Riverside 481 $130,592 10.5% Riverside 482 $83,894 11.5% San Bernardino 127 $79,602 16.6% Sources: a U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: S1901 Income in the Past 12 Months. b U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: S1701 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-59 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts As shown in Table 2-6, the City of Ontario and the City of Jurupa Valley have the lowest median household incomes and highest poverty rates, while the City of Eastvale has the highest income and lowest poverty rate. Census tracts in the study area that have high median household incomes combined with low poverty rates, or low household incomes combined with high poverty rates may have a relatively higher level of community cohesion due to the presence of a community with similar financial circumstances. Figure 2-8 shows the range of median household incomes for each of the tracts in the study area. As the figure shows, the lowest ranges of household income, shown by the light shading in the figure, are located primarily in the central portions of the study area. For the purpose of this analysis, high and low median household income census tracts are those that have median household incomes greater than 125 percent or less than 75 percent of the median household income for the study area, respectively. Similarly, high and low poverty census tracts are those that have poverty prevalence greater than 125 percent or less than 75 percent of the poverty prevalence for the study area. Census tracts that have these high- income/low-poverty conditions include Riverside County census tracts 406.15, 406.16, 418.10, and 481. Census tracts that have low-income/high-poverty conditions include Riverside County census tracts 407.02, 414.10, 415, 416, and 418.13. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-60 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Project Advance Signage Lane Improvement Limits - Counties Median Household Income $35,093 -$44,242 $56,719 - $62.017 $72,862 - $87,917 $92,622 - $109,601 $130,592 -$131,953 Mission Blvd wa Loma • 407.01 4,061.16 dr--T ' 407.0 416 .411111 AMMO z 418.13 —'1•11111•111fill /1111111.... ...mg. 418.09 =MI "6 419.09 9111110111111111111. '111111111111111111111 ^■■■■■■■■i. • 411111111111111MINEIMI1111111111 IMMINIMINIMEMMEN,r" 1MMEINIIMMIN11101. 11111.1111011M11111111. MENNIEN11 IIIIIIMMO11M11114 1111111.111111110- MP Arlington Ave RR 08.09 .4.3' e %Alt 11.14t6P4 Ail I no ray. 0.. IL HErcnrs 4.10 ---- 414.09 1 1 419.11 5 3 Miles Figure 2-8, Ranges of Median Household Income in the Study Area Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-62 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Age is also an important indicator of a community's character. Certain age groups, particularly the elderly, tend to be more active in their communities because of time availability. The median age of the study area and each of the jurisdictions is shown in Table 2-7. Table 2-7. Median Age Jurisdiction / Census Tract Median Age (Years) Percentage of the Population over Age 65 Riverside County 33.7 11.9% San Bernardino County 31.7 8.3% City of Ontario 30.7 6.5% City of Eastvale 30.8 5.8% City of Jurupa Valley 30.4 8.3% City of Norco 39.5 10.4% City of Corona 32.2 7.5% Study area 34.6 8.7% Riverside 406.07 30.5 3.9% Riverside 406.15 29.3 5.6% Riverside 406.16 31.1 6.5% Riverside 407.01 37.5 10.4% Riverside 407.02 40.9 9.9% Riverside 407.03 42.7 13.6% Riverside 408.09 33.9 6.5% Riverside 408.12 39.4 13.2% Riverside 408.13 38.0 9.9% Riverside 414.09 32.3 3.9% Riverside 414.10 27.6 5.0% Riverside 415 26.1 6.6% Riverside 416 28.2 6.8% Riverside 418.09 37.1 11.0% Riverside 418.10 33.7 7.7% Riverside 418.13 32.2 12.2% Riverside 419.09 37.3 9.4% Riverside 419.10 40.9 16.6% Riverside 419.11 37.5 11.0% Riverside 466.01 39.8 3.6% Riverside 466.02 36.4 13.3% Riverside 481 36.9 7.5% Riverside 482 31.5 10.2% San Bernardino 127 30.7 5.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: S0101 Age and Sex. The City of Norco has a median age of 39.5 years (highest of the jurisdictions under review), versus the City of Jurupa Valley with an average age of 30.4 years (youngest of the jurisdictions under review). Several census tracts in the study areai.e., 407.03, 408.12, and 466.02 in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-63 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts City of Norco, 418.13 in the central area of the City of Corona, and 419.10 in the southern area of the City of Corona —have a greater percentage of residents over age 65 when compared to the cities and counties and the study area overall. Over 16 percent of the population in Tract 419.10 is over age 65, which may indicate the potential for a very high level of community cohesion in this tract. Housing Where and how people choose to live, and how they feel about the places they live have a large effect on the character and cohesion of a community. For example, long-term residents are more likely to feel connected to, and invested in, their communities in relation to a population that is relatively transient. Further, a community composed of residents who own homes, rather than renters, is more likely to have a greater sense of cohesion. Occasionally, transportation projects may impact a community's housing stock by removal of existing homes, construction of new homes, change in rates of ownership versus rental, or location of housing, thus potentially affecting the character and cohesion of a community, either temporarily or permanently. As shown in Table 2-8, there are 40,507 housing units in the study area, compared with 799,360 in Riverside County and 698,715 in San Bernardino County. Occupancy As shown in Table 2-8, of the 40,507 housing units in the study area, 95 percent are occupied. A community with high occupancy rates would likely be more cohesive than a community with high vacancy rates. Census tract 407.01 in Riverside County has 100 percent occupancy, compared to only 84.6 percent overall occupancy in Riverside County. All of the census tracts in the study area, with the exception of 407.03, have occupancy rates over 90 percent. Housing Tenure Of the existing units in the study area, approximately 39 percent were constructed after 2000. The City of Eastvale, which was not incorporated in 2000, has experienced a growth in housing units of 91.2 percent since that time. As shown in Table 2-8, Eastvale is a newer community; only 3.6 percent of its population has lived in their current residences prior to 1999. In addition, the study area has a mix of newer as well as established communities. Over 50 percent of the residents in Riverside County census tracts 407.03, 408.12, 466.01, and 466.02 have been living in their current place of residence for 20 years or more, whereas Riverside County census tracts 406.07, 406.15, and 406.16 have a very small percentage of the population whose tenure exceeds 20 years. Length of tenure can be an indicator of community cohesion. Homeownership Purchasing a home is making an investment in a community, and a greater prevalence of homeownership frequently results in increased participation in a community; therefore, home ownership rates are an indicator of community cohesion. As shown in Table 2-8, the cities of Eastvale and Norco have the largest proportion of owner -occupied units (81 percent), while the City of Ontario has the lowest (57.5 percent). In the study area, 72.9 percent of the housing units are owner -occupied. Census tracts 406.15 and 481 in Riverside County have over 90 percent owner -occupancy, which may indicate that those tracts have a high level of cohesion. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-64 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Table 2-8. Housing Characteristics Jurisdiction/Census Tract Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Percent Occupied Percent Owner - Occupied Units % Moved in Prior to 1999 Riverside County 799,360 676,618 84.6% 67.5% 27.1% San Bernardino County 698,715 599,698 85.8% 63.0% 32.7% City of Ontario 47,948 44,751 93.3% 57.5% 32.1% City of Eastvale 14,612 13,983 95.7% 81.0% 3.6% City of Jurupa Valley 26,646 25,043 94.0% 66.8% 38.9% City of Norco 7,534 7,058 93.7% 81.0% 45.2% City of Corona 46,081 43,483 94.4% 68.2% 31.5% Study area 40,507 38,173 94.5% 72.9% 32.3% Riverside 406.07 2,699 2,516 93.2% 56.4% 5.4% Riverside 406.15 2,466 2,425 98.3% 90.4% 6.7% Riverside 406.16 1,924 1,889 98.2% 85.2% 0.7% Riverside 407.01 694 694 100.0% 88.8% 49.2% Riverside 407.02 1,018 946 92.9% 73.7% 48.3% Riverside 407.03 1,017 897 88.2% 75.5% 50.0% Riverside 408.09 1,026 963 93.9% 85.0% 35.2% Riverside 408.12 1,228 1,197 97.5% 73.4% 51.4% Riverside 408.13 1,960 1,772 90.4% 88.1% 23.8% Riverside 414.09 4,548 4,127 90.7% 88.9% 23.0% Riverside 414.10 691 661 95.7% 38.7% 37.8% Riverside 415 467 438 93.8% 48.4% 46.1 % Riverside 416 1,702 1,620 95.2% 24.4% 23.1% Riverside 418.09 2,075 2,006 96.7% 51.4% 30.3% Riverside 418.10 1,591 1,545 97.1% 88.7% 40.8% Riverside 418.13 2,084 1,929 92.6% 51.5% 33.8% Riverside 419.09 1,444 1,378 95.4% 74.4% 43.3% Riverside 419.10 2,321 2,146 92.5% 80.2% 15.1% Riverside 419.11 3,755 3,455 92.0% 88.3% 11.4% Riverside 466.01 181 161 89.0% 58.4% 50.9% Riverside 466.02 1,105 1,060 95.9% 87.0% 60.9% Riverside 481 1,842 1,808 98.2% 92.9% 16.6% Riverside 482 1,221 1,163 95.2% 88.0% 35.2% San Bernardino 127 1,448 1,377 95.1% 72.2% 35.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-65 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Household Size Single -person households tend to correlate with lower cohesion when compared to communities composed of households with two or more people. As shown in Table 2-9, the average household size in the study area is approximately 3.6 people for owner -occupied and 3.5 people for renter -occupied housing units. Table 2-9. Average Household Sizes Jurisdiction/Census Tract Average Household Size of Owner -Occupied Units Average Household Size of Renter -Occupied Units Riverside County 3.16 3.25 San Bernardino County 3.33 3.32 City of Ontario 3.72 3.61 City of Eastvale 4.23 4.17 City of Jurupa Valley 3.97 3.65 City of Norco 3.40 2.99 City of Corona 3.57 3.41 Study area 3.60 3.50 Riverside 406.07 3.81 3.29 Riverside 406.15 4.27 5.45 Riverside 406.16 4.72 5.00 Riverside 407.01 3.60 3.71 Riverside 407.02 3.04 3.53 Riverside 407.03 3.31 3.40 Riverside 408.09 3.33 4.44 Riverside 408.12 3.36 2.53 Riverside 408.13 3.39 2.66 Riverside 414.09 3.67 4.18 Riverside 414.10 4.23 4.66 Riverside 415 3.43 5.58 Riverside 416 4.34 3.74 Riverside 418.09 3.34 2.37 Riverside 418.10 3.81 4.47 Riverside 418.13 3.69 3.07 Riverside 419.09 4.03 2.93 Riverside 419.10 2.68 3.44 Riverside 419.11 3.10 3.54 Riverside 466.01 3.37 1.37 Riverside 466.02 3.70 2.99 Riverside 481 3.53 3.34 Riverside 482 3.70 3.68 San Bernardino 127 3.40 3.44 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-66 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Housing Values As shown in Table 2-10, the median home prices for owner -occupied units in Riverside and San Bernardino counties are $248,100 and $241,500, respectively. The highest median home prices in the study area are found in the City of Norco ($401,000) and the City of Eastvale ($393,100). The City of Jurupa Valley has the lowest median home price ($234,000). Rents paid for rental units are also higher in the cities of Norco and Eastvale and lower in the City of Jurupa Valley. Table 2-10. Housing Values Jurisdiction/Census Tract Owner -Occupied Units Median Home Price Occupied Units Paying Rent Median Contract Rent Riverside County 456,981 $248,100 211,108 $1,163 San Bernardino County 377,759 $241,500 214,307 $1,099 City of Ontario 25,743 $262,800 18,731 $1,249 City of Eastvale 11,326 $393,100 2,573 $2,000+ City of Jurupa Valley 16,728 $234,000 8,029 $1,089 City of Norco 5,719 $401,000 1,287 $1,740 City of Corona 29,672 $341,600 13,396 $1,324 Study area 29,371 $346,850 9,465 $1,626 Riverside 406.07 1,419 $333,300 1,097 $1,809 Riverside 406.15 2,192 $371,300 233 $2,000 Riverside 406.16 1,610 $399,000 279 $2,000 Riverside 407.01 616 $424,000 78 $2,000 Riverside 407.02 697 $327,600 249 $1,675 Riverside 407.03 677 $347,700 220 $1,862 Riverside 408.09 819 $283,800 144 $1,202 Riverside 408.12 879 $359,800 318 $1,354 Riverside 408.13 1,562 $491,200 210 $2,000 Riverside 414.09 3,669 $390,100 458 $2,000 Riverside 414.10 256 $167,700 405 $1,080 Riverside 415 212 $131,800 226 $1,155 Riverside 416 396 $234,900 1,224 $1,109 Riverside 418.09 1,031 $266,100 975 $1,319 Riverside 418.10 1,370 $390,900 175 $2,000 Riverside 418.13 994 $245,300 935 $1,093 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-67 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Jurisdiction/Census Tract Owner -Occupied Units Median Home Price Occupied Units Paying Rent Median Contract Rent Riverside 419.09 1,025 $355,600 353 $6971 Riverside 419.10 1,721 $290,600 425 $1,936 Riverside 419.11 3,051 $367,000 404 $2,000 Riverside 466.01 94 $495,000 67 $2942 Riverside 466.02 922 $395,700 138 $2,000 Riverside 481 1,680 $476,200 128 $2,000 Riverside 482 1,023 $303,300 140 $2,000 San Bernardino 127 994 $245,900 383 $1,278 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics. Notes: The median rent for several tracts in the study area was shown as $2,000+. Those were rounded to $2,000 for the purpose of calculating the median gross rent for the study area. 1 Low median rent in tract 419.09 is likely due to the presence of subsidized apartment units (although a specific complex or group of complexes was not able to be identified). 2 Low median rent in tract 466.01 is likely due to the presence of subsidized apartment units (Clark Terrace Low -Income Senior Apartments). Economic Conditions Community cohesion is often created through frequent personal contact. Oftentimes, this occurs at places of business while working, shopping, or while conducting other commerce -related activities. Shopping and employment centers are often epicenters for interaction among the community. Additionally, the prosperity of employers where community members work is linked to other lifestyle factors that affect community character. Occasionally, transportation projects may impact a community's economics by adding or removing businesses or employment opportunities, improving or restricting access to existing businesses and employment, or displacing the labor force, thus potentially affecting the character and cohesion of a community, either temporarily or permanently. Employment and Income Unemployment levels in Riverside County and all of the cities within the study area increased by an average of 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2009. The labor force in Riverside County grew by 4.5 percent between 2007 and 2013, while the labor force in Norco and Corona both grew at a rate of 2.2 percent. There are an estimated 581,470 total jobs in Riverside County. Table 2-11 shows the 2012 labor force, unemployment, and per capita income statistics for the study area and each jurisdiction. As shown in Table 2-11, the cities of Eastvale and Norco have the lowest unemployment rates (6.2 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively), and the City of Jurupa Valley has the highest (11.9 percent).' 1 These rates are census estimates and represent reported conditions over an average of five years from 2008 through 2012. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-68 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Table 2-11. Labor Force, Unemployment, and Per Capita Income Jurisdiction/Census Tract Population 16 Years and Over Percentage in Labor Force Percentage Unemployed Per Capita Income Riverside County 1,649,070 61.7% 8.7% $23,863 San Bernardino County 1,521,720 62.6% 8.7% $21,636 City of Ontario 123,080 69.0% 9.7% $18,782 City of Eastvale 41,416 71.0% 6.2% $29,204 City of Jurupa Valley 72,551 65.5% 11.9% $17,853 City of Norco 21,868 53.9% 5.9% $26,081 City of Corona 113,307 69.4% 8.5% $27,200 Study area 104,945 64.9% 8.5% $26,681 Riverside 406.07 6,571 73.0% 9.3% $27,396 Riverside 406.15 7,503 67.3% 7.3% $26,749 Riverside406.16 6,178 69.2% 5.1% $27,000 Riverside 407.01 1,956 63.3% 8.3% $31,463 Riverside 407.02 2,392 67.6% 10.2% $22,575 Riverside 407.03 2,427 69.5% 5.3% $30,280 Riverside 408.09 2,555 71.5% 10.9% $17,956 Riverside 408.12 2,832 66.8% 9.4% $28,017 Riverside 408.13 4,552 64.2% 6.2% $35,291 Riverside 414.09 11,064 74.6% 13.2% $24,544 Riverside 414.10 2,058 65.2% 7.5% $11,108 Riverside 415 1,439 64.0% 14.6% $11,325 Riverside 416 4,502 66.5% 13.4% $12,531 Riverside 418.09 4,610 69.2% 10.7% $26,066 Riverside 418.10 4,457 67.6% 7.0% $36,476 Riverside 418.13 4,887 63.1% 11.7% $26,531 Riverside 419.09 4,067 66.8% 10.3% $24,536 Riverside 419.10 4,876 56.7% 5.3% $32,627 Riverside 419.11 8,077 68.2% 5.8% $36,798 Riverside 466.01 3,881 4.0% 0.5% $31,944 Riverside 466.02 2,945 57.8% 4.2% $25,354 Riverside 481 4,564 70.5% 7.6% $39,956 Riverside 482 3,175 70.5% 11.0% $28,332 San Bernardino 127 3,377 80.8% 9.0% $25,490 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012c: DP03 Select Economic Conditions. Business Activity Established businesses in the project study area are generally located along the east and west sides of I-15. Businesses in the study area depend on freeway and roadway access. The largest industries in the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area as of 2010 are: trade, transportation, and utilities (22 percent); government (19 percent); and retail trade (12 percent). Table 2-12 shows employment in each of the jurisdictions in 2008 as well as the projected employment for 2020 and 2035 (SCAG 2012). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-69 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Among the cities in the study area, the City of Eastvale is anticipated to see the largest percentage growth in job creation; however, the City of Ontario is anticipated to experience the highest number of additional jobs by 2035. The portions of the City of Ontario within the study area with industrial land uses and planned land uses are projected to continue to be industrial and business -related. The City of Corona is also expected to see substantial job growth by 2035, adding over 33,800 new jobs to the area. Employment opportunities in Jurupa Valley are expected to almost double, adding over 25,400 jobs to the regional economy by 2035. Table 2-12. Employment from 2008 through 2035 Jurisdiction Number of Jobs 2008 Number of Jobs 2020 Number of Jobs 2035 Percent Change 2008-2035 Riverside County 664,000 939,000 1,243,000 87.2% San Bernardino County 701,000 810,000 1,059,000 51.1 % City of Ontario 114,300 142,900 214,400 87.6% City of Eastvale 3,700 5,400 10,100 173.0% City of Jurupa Valley 28,100 34,400 53,500 90.4% City of Norco 12,400 17,000 21,600 74.2% City of Corona 71,200 88,300 105,000 47.5% Source: SCAG 2012. Major employers in the jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project are identified in Table 2-13. Outside of the immediate study area, other major employers include the County of Riverside (17,766 employees), March Air Reserve Base (9,000 employees), Stater Bros. Markets (6,900 employees), Wal-Mart (5,681 employees), and U.C. Riverside (5,497). In San Bernardino County, the Ontario International Airport is a major employer, employing almost 8,000 people. Table 2-13. Major Employers in the Study Area Employer Location Employees Corona -Norco Unified School District Corona 4,633 Jurupa Unified School District Jurupa Valley 2,061 Naval Warfare Assessment Center Norco 1,300 California Rehabilitation Center Norco 1,214 Corona Regional Medical Center Corona 1,100 Source: Riverside County Economic Development Agency 2014. Community Services Community services and facilities are an important aspect of neighborhood identity and can be critical resources for the community. Occasionally, transportation projects may affect community services, either positively or negatively, thus affecting the character and cohesion of a community, either temporarily or permanently. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-70 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts Schools The school districts for the cities of Ontario, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Corona include: • Ontario -Montclair School District: 26 elementary schools, six middle schools, and two alternative programs. • Chaffey Joint Union High School District: 10 high schools, one day school, and one adult school. • Jurupa Valley School District: 16 elementary schools, three middle schools, and five high schools. • Corona/Norco Unified School District: 30 elementary schools, eight middle schools, and ten high schools. The neighborhoods surrounding the project area also include a number of colleges and technical schools, including Everest College, La Sierra University, Pacific Times Healthcare College, Norco College, and ITT Technical Institute. Table 2-14 lists all schools —including preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges —located within 0.5 mile of the project limits Table 2-14. Schools within 0.5 Mile of the Project School Name Location Louis VanderMolen Fundamental Elementary School 6744 Carnelian Street, Jurupa Valley Sierra Vista Elementary School 3560 Corona Avenue, Norco Highland Elementary School 2301 Alhambra Street, Norco Norco Headstart 1900 Third Street, Norco Little Rascals Pre-school 2200 Hamner Avenue, Norco John F. Kennedy Middle College High School 1951 Third Street, Norco Norco College 2001 Third Street, Norco St. Mels Catholic School 4160 Corona Avenue, Norco Olive Branch Christian Academy 7702 El Cerrito Road, Corona Parkridge Elementary School 750 Corona Avenue, Corona Temescal Valley Elementary 22950 Claystone Avenue, Corona Bixby Oaks Children's Center 1421 Rimpau Avenue, Corona El Cerrito Middle School 7610 El Cerrito Road, Corona Centennial High School 1820 Rimpau Avenue, Corona ITT Technical Institute 4160 Temescal Canyon Road, Corona Sources: Google Earth 2013; Corona -Norco Unified School District 2014; Ontario -Montclair School District 2013. Community Centers and Public Services Public services are those provided by the government for the benefit of its citizens. Community centers such as senior centers, libraries, and youth recreation centers can be important resources for a community. Community centers are gathering places that help define a neighborhood and Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-71 Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts link community members. The community centers and public services within 0.5 mile of the project limits are identified in Table 2-15, below. Table 2-15. Community Centers and Public Services within 0.5 Mile of the Project Facility Location City of Eastvale City Hall 12363 Limonite Avenue, Eastvale U.S. Post Office 1801 Town and County Drive, Norco Norco Public Library 3954 Old Hamner Avenue, Norco Norco Senior Citizens Center 2690 Clark Avenue, Norco City of Norco City Hall 2870 Clark Avenue, Norco U.S. Post Office 1941 California Avenue, Corona El Cerrito Branch Library 7581 Rudell Road, Corona Source: Google Earth 2013: City of Norco, City of Corona; City of Eastvale 2015. Religious Facilities Religious facilities serve as important gathering and meeting facilities for communities and are important elements of community character and cohesion. There are 21 religious facilities within 0.5 miles of the project limits. Although these institutions are indicative of a community's character, they are not considered integral to a particular community included in this study. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary Short-term noise and air quality impacts on some local neighborhoods may occur during the construction of the freeway improvements and sound walls. However, these indirect construction -related impacts related to dust and noise would be minimized through measure AQ-1, referenced in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, and measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 in Section 2.2.7, Noise. Therefore, no adverse indirect short-term impacts on established residences and businesses in the project area are anticipated during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Access to community service facilities, such as El Cerrito Middle School (located one block from the on -/off -ramp to I-15 North from El Cerrito Road) and the Eastvale City Hall (located on Limonite Avenue, approximately 300 feet west of the I-15 off -ramp to Limonite Avenue) may be temporarily affected during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). In addition, access to residential areas adjacent to the freeway may be temporarily affected during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). However, with the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) as identified in measure C-1, temporary access impacts on these community service facilities and residential neighborhoods will be minimized. Permanent The project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of new housing that would cause a direct change in population or community composition, nor would it directly or indirectly have an adverse impact on population characteristics, housing mixture, economic Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-72 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Community Impacts conditions, or supporting community services within the study area. Any potential changes to the communities that comprise the study area would result from planned county and city growth and would occur with or without the project. Implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not adversely directly or indirectly affect community cohesion because the freeway already exists and the nearby residential uses are mixed with commercial, industrial, and other land use types. The improvements associated with the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would reduce existing and projected future traffic congestion along I-15 within the project limits and would provide improved mobility within the existing communities. The project would not divide neighborhoods, separate residents from community facilities, directly encourage or discourage growth, create negative changes to existing quality of life, or increase urbanization or isolation. Therefore, no long-term direct or indirect adverse effects on community cohesion would occur with the implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, the project improvements would not occur; therefore, there would be no short-term or long-term direct or indirect adverse impacts on community character or cohesion under this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Construction activities associated with the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would result in indirect short-term impacts related to noise to surrounding neighborhoods. To minimize potential short-term adverse impacts, measure AQ-1, referenced in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, and measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 in Section 2.2.7, Noise, would be implemented during the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). The following measure would be necessary to avoid or minimize potential short-term impacts on community cohesion: C-1: Prior to construction, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared that will: a) Identify the locations of potential temporary detours, if needed. b) Help to ensure that local access to residences and businesses, as well as bus and emergency service vehicle access, is available during construction of the project. c) Specify timeframes for temporary detours, if needed. d) Specify the process for notifying residents, businesses, emergency services, and the traveling public of the construction period and any required detours. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-73 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice 2.1.5 Environmental Justice 2.1.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, signed by President William J. Clinton on February 11, 1994. This EO directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Low income is defined based on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. The 2014 HHS poverty level for a family of four is an annual income of $23,850. All considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes have also been included in this project. The Department's commitment to upholding the mandates of Title VI is demonstrated by its Title VI Policy Statement, signed by the Director, which can be found in Appendix C of this document. 2.1.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Information used in this section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015a). Description of Study Area Three study areas are defined and considered in the environmental justice analysis for the project: the Direct Impact Area (DIA); the Extended Resource Area (ERA); and the Region of Comparison (ROC). Each of these study areas is described below. • Direct Impact Area - The DIA is the area close to the project, and consequently includes the population most likely to experience the potential impacts of the physical improvements associated with the project. For this analysis, the DIA includes all census tracts within 0.25 mile of the I-15 corridor within the project limits. Figure 2-9 illustrates the DIA and identifies the census tracts that comprise this study area. • Extended Resource Area - The ERA is included in addition to the DIA to consider the potential impacts on the likely users of the proposed express lane facility. While it cannot be determined exactly who would use the express lanes and from where they would be traveling, all census tracts located within 15 miles of the I-15 corridor within the project limits are included in the ERA, as shown in Figure 2-9. • Region of Comparison - A ROC is necessary in order to determine if potential project - related adverse impacts are disproportionate in comparison to the greater area. For this analysis, the ROC is composed of the following counties in their entirety, due to their proximity to the project: Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-74 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project ZISM7MA Sun gebnr! liT San Gabriel Wilderness J Nlonrovla r rcadia Azusa Glend0_„ a s Charter Oak San 7imast San Gabriel tiara Rosemead l3a}� rn3 rk Covin? Clare E1 Mont 0„West Co'.-na Pfl es - South El Monte West Puente V,'ley La Puente Wal rut Mn�'^hello Sail ney Sari 605) --Buena ';ark - Palma Tess Stanton Park ()rangy , - Garden Grove N•,' ,Tustin Westminster Santa An e4r- Wr 'gRtwr ad no !-#Ills Los St Francs ®Extended Resource Area Quarter Mile Project Buffer Direct Impact Area - — Counties la, ; �g Laguna Niguel. ach { int FY Motgtt San Art 01.1NO 10,06411 Victorvilie- .r tan Bemardmo National Forest Rancho Fontana _. CucamongaRi alto . r-� }Q 1 stoomngton Colter nth cho santa ! arga on RUbldOtlX `iQ 5 antrx3o Pea Woadcrest San Berg ardino !Silent❑ Redlands _ M.:-eno VavE y Mari 1. Air For[ &kW Lake Elsinor Sedco� •; .Idamar National Forest [amp Pendietof Murrie 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure 2-9 Direct Impact Area and Extended Resource Area Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-76 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Minority Concentrations As shown in Table 2-16, the DIA is predominantly Hispanic (41.2 percent) and non -Hispanic White, and all minorities comprise 61.2 percent of the total population. In addition to Hispanic minorities, non -Hispanic Asians comprise 10.3 percent of the population, and non -Hispanic Blacks comprise 6.7 percent. Table 2-16. Minority Populations in the Direct Impact Area County Census Tract Total Population White Alone, Non- Hispanic Minority Minority Percentage Black Alone, Non- Hispanic Asian Alone, Non- Hispanic Other', Non- Hispanic Hispanic, All races Riverside 406.07 9,317 2,494 863 1,205 288 4,467 73.2% 406.15 9,024 2,070 898 2,058 361 3,637 77.1% 406.16 7,610 1,585 830 2,229 234 2,732 79.2% 407.01 2,248 1,549 23 56 65 555 31.1% 407.02 2,746 1,784 25 34 59 844 35.0% 407.03 2,780 1,840 21 38 117 764 33.8% 408.09 3,353 1,149 219 426 92 1,467 65.7% 408.12 3,480 2,060 35 41 60 1,284 40.8% 408.13 6,080 3,390 181 548 196 1,765 44.2% 414.09 14,898 6,276 1,023 2,303 501 4,795 57.9% 414.10 3,288 148 8 16 21 3,095 95.5% 415 2,053 148 47 33 33 1,792 92.8% 416 6,230 644 140 85 92 5,269 89.7% 418.09 5,834 2,652 370 447 194 2,171 54.5% 418.10 5,665 2,836 364 645 247 1,573 49.9% 418.13 6,698 1,836 217 118 113 4,414 72.6% 419.09 4,990 2,106 85 89 96 2,614 57.8% 419.10 6,342 3,203 343 427 222 2,147 49.5% 419.11 10,258 4,996 743 1,453 394 2,672 51.3% 466.01 4,888 1,523 1,526 34 60 1,745 68.8% 466.02 3,712 2,362 38 51 103 1,158 36.4% 481 6,404 3,532 366 767 255 1,484 44.8% 482 4,301 1,495 355 633 159 1,659 65.2% San Bernardino 127 4,052 1,122 403 321 123 2,083 72.3% Total Direct Impact Area 136,251 52,800 9,123 14,057 4,085 56,186 61.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. "Other" includes those identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races. As shown in Table 2-17, the ERA is composed of a mix of races/ethnicities similar to that for the DIA, with Hispanics comprising the largest group among all races/ethnicities. Two-thirds of the population of the ERA is minority, a slightly higher percentage than within the DIA. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-77 Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Table 2-17. Minority Populations in the Extended Resource Area County (Portion within ERA) Population White Alone, Non- Hispanic Minority Minority Population Percentage Black Alone, Non- Hispanic Asian Alone, Non- Hispanic Other', Non- Hispanic Hispanic, All Races Riverside 886,402 305,772 53,883 64,587 26,440 435,720 65.5% San Bernardino 1,163,793 278,567 95,081 90,538 23,558 671,020 76.1% Orange 418,879 261,377 5,633 66,770 15,433 69,666 37.6% Los Angeles 276,215 77,616 15,217 43,444 7,043 132,895 71.9% Total Extended Resource Area 2,745,289 923,332 169,814 265,339 72,474 1,309,301 66.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 'Other" includes those identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races. The racial composition of the ROC is similar to that of the ERA, with the same mix of races and ethnicities and Hispanics comprising the majority of the groups in the region (see Table 2-18). The DIA and ERA both include a substantial proportion of minorities, most of which are Hispanics (any race). The ROC has a slightly larger percentage of minority populations than the DIA; however, the ROC has a slightly smaller percentage of minority populations than the ERA. Table 2-18. Minority Populations in the Region of Comparison County Population White Alone, Non- Hispanic Minority Minority Population Percentage Black Alone, Non- Hispanic Asian Alone, Non- Hispanic Other', Non- Hispanic Hispanic, All Races Riverside 2,189,641 869,068 130,823 125,921 68,572 995,257 60.3% San Bernardino 2,035,210 677,598 170,700 123,978 61,789 1,001,145 66.7% Orange 3,010,232 1,328,499 44,000 532,477 92,283 1,012,973 55.9% Los Angeles 9,818,605 2,728,321 815,086 1,325,671 261,638 4,687,889 72.2% San Diego 3,095,313 1,500,047 146,600 328,058 129,260 991,348 51.5% Total Region of Comparison 20,149,001 7,103,533 1,307,209 2,436,105 613,542 8,688,612 64.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. a "Other" includes those identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races. Figure 2-10 shows all census tracts located within the DIA. The 11 census tracts within the DIA that are composed of a large proportion of minorities, defined as those whose minority percentage is greater than that of the ROC (64.7 percent), are highlighted in yellow. Percentages of minorities in these census tracts, which comprise the minority communities of concern, are shown in the figure as well. These census tracts are located predominantly in the north end of the corridor from Norco to the San Bernardino County line and in the central portion of the corridor in Corona. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-78 LL a 0 n on Clair China II: i'.a I E3ntFr ti 7 .IIIt' • +vIIIY• • CrxrEr.[PApr C5E411, - •�. _ x o„uM rio c NAIL ' • 1. _ f. r 466.02 r5ilve•mdo ArrprX1 aka r _ �Ey +� . y1j.rM+� , Sn'�•h FnnS nn. � � Air< .K � r III - I .�!11� Dz. LT urup.l Aw 406.07 73.2% dr. r 406SW 77.1 °Io 92.8% SILVERADO CANYON �tit; Census Tracts within 114 mile Census Tracts > 64.7°I0 Minority Quarter Mile Project Buffer - — Counties 47tisco •ON Mird LOrth1 A bona 11 ey 482 65.294 414.09 419.11 to Lora w • 8loomingLop sa..• An Rub!doux 0 FAAGNALIF Ciwan Arlin • ton Ave [91 j.. IiLFs5ANDAL1 �oS— iakr Mw[I•.... Dr Figure 2-10 Minority Concentration Areas within the Direct Impact Area Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-80 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Low -Income Concentrations Low-income populations in the three study areas evaluated for environmental justice impacts were determined by the percentage of individuals below 150 percent of the poverty level. As shown in Table 2-19, 16.9 percent of the population within the DIA is below 150 percent of the poverty level, although the percentages of low-income populations vary considerably among the census tracts in the ERA. Table 2-19. Low -Income Populations in the Direct Impact Area County Census Tract Total Population for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined Total Population Below 150% of Poverty Level Percentage of Population Below 150% of Poverty Level Riverside 406.07 9,031 1,430 15.8% 406.15 10,434 777 7.4% 406.16 8,976 461 5.1 % 407.01 2,509 204 8.1 407.02 3,004 902 30.0% 407.03 3,044 450 14.8% 408.09 3,367 519 15.4% 408.12 3,764 418 11.1 % 408.13 5,847 659 11.3% 414.09 15,424 2,543 16.5% 414.10 2,906 1,630 56.1 % 415 1,998 1,044 52.3% 416 6,308 2,881 45.7% 418.09 5,762 991 17.2% 418.10 6,011 190 3.2% 418.13 6,536 2,297 35.1 % 419.09 5,176 1,183 22.9% 419.10 6,078 1,063 17.5% 419.11 10,890 607 5.6% 466.01 409 66 16.1 % 466.02 3,822 849 22.2% 481 6,331 666 10.5% 482 4,302 495 11.5% San Bernardino 127 4,697 779 16.6% Total Direct Impact Area 136,626 23,104 16.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012a. Table 2-20 indicates that 23.5 percent of the individuals in the ERA are below 150 percent of the poverty level. Similarly, as shown in Table 2-21, the percentage of individuals below 150 percent of the poverty level in the ROC is 26.5 percent. Both the ERA and ROC have higher percentages of low-income populations than the DIA. Only the portion of Orange County that is included in the ERA has a lower percentage of persons below 150 percent of the poverty level (7.4 percent). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-81 Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Table 2-20. Low -Income Populations in the Extended Resource Area County (Portion Within ERA) Population for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined Number of Persons below 150% of the Poverty Level Percentage of Persons below 150% of the Poverty Level Riverside 880,861 229,457 26.0% San Bernardino 1,155,114 312,466 27.1% Orange 420,732 31,116 7.4% Los Angeles 267,968 66,722 24.9% Total Extended Resource Area 2,724,675 639,761 23.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012a. Table 2-21. Low -Income Populations in the Region of Comparison County Population for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined Number of Persons Below 150% of the Poverty Level Percentage of Persons Below 150% of the Poverty Level Riverside 2,157,713 579,031 26.8% San Bernardino 1,995,666 583,413 29.2% Orange 2,985,156 600,344 20.1 % Los Angeles 9,684,503 2,802,819 28.9% San Diego 3,019,666 689,628 22.8% Total Region of Comparison 19,842,704 5,255,235 26.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012a. Figure 2-11 identifies the extent of all census tracts located within the DIA; census tracts in the DIA that have populations with higher percentages of individuals below 150 percent of the poverty level than in the ROC (threshold of 26.5 percent) are shaded in yellow. Percentages of low-income populations in these tracts, which comprise the low-income communities of concern, are shown in the figure as well. Four of the five census tracts are located in the City of Corona, and the fifth is located in north central Norco. Existing Transportation Travel Patterns and Conditions This section describes the travel patterns of the population within the ERA, the area from which the users of the express lanes are likely to reside. The counties within the ERA where employees work and means of transportation, including the use of carpool lanes, and the characteristics of the existing facilities are presented below. Regional Commuting Patterns Many commuters within southern California commute across multiple counties on a daily basis. Within the ERA, the distances workers travel to access jobs vary from short commutes within their community to long distance trips using the region's freeway system. The ROC is used for the purpose of identifying travel patterns. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-82 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project r:".issiori Blvd Chino • 4 1; c 466.01 407.01 466.02_ AO 406.07 Mira Loma 406.16 r � - 408.49 408.13 ' 414.10 r �� ' r 415 ,�5fi,1°�� 'Glen Avon drvW ea L ARA FirLLt 419.09 Census Tracts within 114 mile Census Tracts > 26.5% below 150% of the Poverty Level Quarter Mile Project Buffer - — Counties urupa Iley 414.99 419.11 Rubicioux d Gcu.o c Jaruow II MAO rruru n 4 rilk Arlington Ave Riversicfe ,o.„IgH¢n FPVd ".o, Litt. •4 thinin Figure 2-11 Low -Income Areas within the Direct Impact Area Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-84 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice In the counties that comprise the ROC, the majority of workers age 16 and older are employed within their county of residence; however, there are a large number of workers who commute to other counties, and many of these commuters likely use the I-15 corridor to access these jobs. Tables 2-22 and 2-23 show the counties of residence and employment broken down by minority and low-income status, respectively. Table 2-22 shows the percentage of minority workers who are employed within and outside of their county of residence. As the table indicates, a little over two-thirds of the minority workers in Riverside and San Bernardino counties commute within their county to access their jobs. Over 90 percent of the minority workers in Los Angeles and San Diego counties are employed within their own county. Table 2-22. Counties of Residence and Employment by Minority Status County of Residence County of Employment Total Workers* in ROC Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino San Diego Los Angeles Total workers* 4,091,655 187,305 15,960 59,690 7,450 4,362,060 Number of minority persons 2,794,720 130,105 12,020 43,910 5,235 2,985,990 Percentage of minorities working in this county 93.6% 4.4% 0.4% 1.5% 0.2% 100.00% Orange Total workers* 176,265 1,206,415 15,390 12,070 16,140 1,426,280 Number of minority persons 87,210 617,340 8,345 6,025 7,945 726,865 Percentage of minorities working in this county 12.0% 84.9% 1.1 % 0.8% 1.1 % 100.00% Riverside Total workers* 46,615 67,595 608,895 92,430 37,230 852,765 Number of minority persons 29,595 37,495 329,385 51,700 18,025 466,200 Percentage of minorities working in this county 6.3% 8.0% 70.7% 11.1 % 3.9% 100.00% San Bernardino Total workers* 126,095 36,735 71,540 592,570 2,335 829,275 Number of minority persons 88,460 23,385 42,505 344,900 1,395 500,645 Percentage of minorities working in this county 17.7% 4.7% 8.5% 68.9% 0.3% 100.00% San Diego Total workers* 7,120 21,295 8,290 1,270 1,348,295 1,386,270 Number of minority persons 2,460 8,360 2,855 420 603,895 617,990 Percentage of minorities working in this county 0.4% 1.4% 0.5% 0.1% 97.7% 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008a. * Workers 16 and older. Table 2-23 identifies the percentages of low-income workers who commute within and outside of their own counties. The table shows that about 80 to 90 percent of low-income workers in all counties except San Diego, which is well over 90 percent at 97.8 percent, are employed within their county. Approximately 7.4 percent of Riverside County residents commute to San Bernardino County; 7.6 percent of San Bernardino County residents commute to Riverside County. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-85 Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Table 2-23 Counties of Residence and Employment by Low -Income Status County of Residence County of Employment Total Workers* in ROC Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino San Diego Los Angeles Total workers* 4,077,800 186,490 15,960 59,495 59,495 4,399,240 Number of persons below 150% of the poverty level 52,580 3,360 315 15 4,755 61,025 Percentage of low income persons working in this county 86.2% 5.5% 0.5% 0.0% 7.8% 100.00% Orange Total workers* 175,795 1,201,410 15,390 12,045 16,140 467,450 Number of persons below 150% of the poverty level 10,100 132,570 1,425 880 1,505 146,480 Percentage of low income persons working in this county 6.9% 90.5% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0% 100.00% Riverside Total workers* 46,585 67,595 608,210 92,385 37,230 852,005 Number of persons below 150% of the poverty level 3,480 4,470 92,165 8,220 2,470 110,805 Percentage of low income persons working in this county 3.1 % 4.0% 83.2% 7.4% 2.2% 100.00% San Bernardino Total workers* 126,095 36,685 71,265 585,195 2,300 821,540 Number of persons below 150% of the poverty level 8,415 2,405 7,915 85,050 245 104,030 Percentage of low income persons working in this county 8.1 % 2.3% 7.6% 81.8% 0.2% 100.00% San Diego Total workers* 7,120 21,245 8,290 1,270 1,302,510 1,340,435 Number of persons below 150% of the poverty level 685 1,810 720 110 146,485 149,810 Percentage of low income persons working in this county 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 0.1 % 97.8% 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008b. * Workers 16 and older. As shown in Tables 2-22 and 2-23, the propensity for individuals to work within their own county is about the same independent of minority or low-income status. However, there are slightly higher percentages of low-income workers in Riverside and San Bernardino counties that are employed within their own county than for the population in general. Means of Transportation to Work Commuters within the ERA have a variety of travel choices, including driving an automobile alone, carpooling with two or more occupants in the vehicle, using public transit, or using other means of travel (such as taxicabs, motorcycles, bicycles, and walking). Table 2-24 shows the commuter modes used by workers in the ERA that do not work from home. Among all Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-86 Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice commuters, 82 percent drive alone. As the table indicates, 13.3 percent of all commuters carpool on a regular basis. Moreover, the higher percentages of carpoolers are in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties (14.6 percent, 14.5 percent, and 14.0 percent, respectively). Table 2-24. Commuter Modes -Extended Resource Area County (Portion Within ERA) Drive Alone Carpool Transits Other Modeb Percentage of Commuters Who Carpool Riverside 278,774 50,926 7,237 11,906 14.6% San Bernardino 377,663 68,012 10,023 12,387 14.5% Orange 175,608 15,580 2,151 3,741 7.9% Los Angeles 86,659 15,401 3,825 4,319 14.0% Total 918,704 149,919 23,236 32,353 13.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012b. a Transit includes bus, streetcar, trolley, subway, railroad, and ferry. b Other modes include taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, and walking (excludes those that work from home). Table 2-25 shows the modes of transportation for minority and non -minority populations within the ERA. As the table shows, greater percentages of minority populations carpool or use transit than their non -minority counterparts in the ERA as well as in each county that comprises the ERA. Minority commuters are also more likely to use transit than non -minorities in the ERA. Table 2-25. Modes of Transportation and Minority Status in Extended Resource Area County Total Workers 16 Years and Over Percentage Who Drive Alone Percentage Who Carpool Percentage Who Use Transita Percentage of Those Who Use Another Modeb or Work at Home Riverside Non- minority 139,453 78.7% 11.1 % 1.8% 7.2% Minority 225,803 75.0% 15.8% 2.1 % 8.5% San Bernardino Non- minority 133,880 82.8% 9.4% 1.1 % 6.7% Minority 348,893 76.5% 15.9% 2.4% 5.2% Orange Non- minority 133,328 83.7% 5.9% 0.5% 9.8% Minority 77,897 82.1 % 9.8% 1.9% 6.2% Los Angeles Non- minority 35,825 76.5% 8.0% 2.4% 13.2% Minority 82,545 72.8% 15.3% 3.7% 8.3% Total Extended Resource Area Non- minority 442,485 81.3% 8.8% 1.3% 8.6% Minority 735,139 76.2% 15.1% 2.4% 6.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010a. a Transit includes bus, streetcar, trolley, subway, railroad, and ferry. b Other modes include taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, and walking. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-87 Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Table 2-26 shows the modes of transportation for commuters who are above and below 150 percent of the poverty level within the ERA. As the data in the table indicate, carpooling is more common for those below 150 percent of the poverty level, accounting for over 15 percent of the low-income commuters. Table 2-26. Modes of Transportation and Low-income Status in Extended Resource Area County Total Workers 16 Years and Over Percentage Who Drive Alone Percentage Who Carpool Percentage Who Use Transit' Percentage of Those Who Use Another Model or Work at Home Riverside At or above 150% of poverty level 310,072 77.6% 13.8% 1.8% 6.8% Below 150%of poverty level 53,973 70.8% 15.2% 3.1% 10.9% San Bernardino At or above 150% of poverty level 408,892 80.0% 13.2% 1.8% 5.0% Below 150% of poverty level 73,881 68.6% 18.8% 3.4% 9.2% Orange At or above 150% of poverty level 202,338 83.5% 7.2% 0.9% 8.4% Below 150% of poverty level 8,887 73.8% 11.7% 3.7% 10.8% Los Angeles At or above 150% of poverty level 99,263 76.8% 12.6% 2.9% 7.7% Below 150%of poverty level 16,237 64.1% 17.8% 5.9% 12.2% Total Extended Resource Area At or above 150% of poverty level 1,020,565 79.6% 12.1% 1.7% 6.5% Below 150% of poverty level 152,978 69.1% 17.0% 3.6% 10.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010b. a Transit includes bus, streetcar, trolley, subway, railroad, and ferry. b Other modes include taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, and walking. Figure 2-12 further shows that, overall in the ERA, commuters below 150 percent of the poverty level are more likely to carpool than those at or above 150 percent of the poverty level. It should be noted that not all of these commuters are using the existing carpool lanes, as the census data relates to carpooling as a mode and not directly the use of HOV lanes. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-88 Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Below 150% of Poverty At or Above 150% of Level Poverty Level Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010b. ■ Carpool ■ Drive Alone Figure 2-12 Carpooling versus Driving Alone for Low -Income Commuters in the Extended Resource Area 2.1.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary Minor short-term direct impacts related to traffic and circulation and short-term indirect impacts related to air quality and noise would result from the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) within the DIA. Direct impacts resulting from construction near neighborhoods would be avoided or minimized through the implementation of the TMP discussed in measure C-1 in Section 2.1.4, Community Impacts. Implementation of measures identified in Section 2.2.7, Noise, specify that construction activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local noise standards and in accordance with Caltrans' special standard provisions (Caltrans SSP) 14-8.02, "Noise Control," Impacts from construction noise would be short-term and intermittent. Further measures identified in Section 2.2.7, Noise, to address temporary indirect noise impacts from construction include: changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2018 and be completed in 2020. Temporary construction emissions would result from grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/subgrade construction, paving, and the commuting patterns of construction workers. Pollutant emissions would vary daily, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and prevailing weather. Short-term degradation of air quality may occur as a result of the release of particulate emissions Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-89 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice (airborne dust) generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities related to construction, as well as emissions from construction equipment. The implementation of exhaust and fugitive dust emission control measures as discussed in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, would avoid and/or minimize any indirect impacts on air quality. The project would conform to Caltrans Section 14-9.02 (Air Pollution Control), which includes a suite of exhaust emissions control measures. A measure identified in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), requires that fugitive dust control measures be applied to all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin, unless said project is specifically exempted by the rule. The project would be considered a large operation under the Rule's definition and would be required to implement measures for each source of PMIo emissions in addition to the requirements for large operations, as specified in the Rule. In addition, as identified in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, the project would not exceed daily significance thresholds. Therefore, there would not be any indirect construction -phase air quality impacts on populations of concern within the study area. With the implementation of the measures identified in Sections 2.1.7, Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities; 2.2.6, Air Quality; and 2.2.7, Noise, no short-term direct or indirect adverse impacts on environmental justice communities resulting from construction - related impacts on local traffic, access, and circulation in the neighborhoods would occur during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, no direct or indirect disproportionate impacts would occur to populations of concern. Permanent The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not have any direct adverse land use, housing, or community long-term impacts because the project would not require the acquisition of any residences or businesses and therefore would not cause displacements within the area where low-income or minority populations may reside. However, during operation of the project, the potential exists for indirect impacts on environmental justice populations through air quality, traffic, noise, and visual impacts. Although the project is a conforming project for regional emissions, CO and PM2,5/PMIo hot -spot screening analyses were conducted to determine if there were localized emissions effects. The CO Protocol screening described in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, concluded that all intersection locations within the project limits could be screened out and do not require further analysis. The analysis also concluded that it is unlikely that the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would generate new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay attainment of national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and/or PMIo. With the project, the projected maximum annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes in horizon year 2040 would be above the 140,000 to 150,000 AADT criterion established by FHWA for projects considered to have higher potential for mobile source air toxics (MSAT) effects. A summary of horizon year 2040 MSAT emissions for the Baseline (year 2013), No - Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) (horizon year 2040), and Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) (horizon year 2040) is provided in Table 2-27. MSAT emissions under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) are estimated to decrease when compared to the No -Build Alternative. Additionally, overall MSAT emissions at horizon year 2040 are anticipated to be Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-90 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice considerably less than baseline year 2013 levels (5,980 for 2040 No Build and 5,968 for 2040 Build compared with 9,366 for the baseline year). Table 2-27. Comparison of Years 2013 and 2040 MSAT Emissions (Ibs/day) MSAT Pollutant Baseline Year 2013 Horizon Year 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) No -Build Alternative Net Change Diesel PM 4,882 2,480 2,476 4 Formaldehyde 1,992 1,722 1,732 (10) 1,3-Butadiene 214 110 110 -- Benzene 1,390 850 852 (2) Acrolein 46 22 22 -- Acetaldehyde 842 784 788 (4) Total MSAT Emissions 9,366 5,968 5,980 (12) Source: Ca!trans 2015c. Based on the discussion above, there would not be any indirect air quality impacts on populations of concern within the study area during operation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) when compared with the No -Build Alternative. The neighborhoods for which operational traffic noise would approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC) of 67 dBA (for noise -sensitive land uses such as residences) and that are identified as having high concentrations of minority and/or low-income populations include: • Corona, northeast quadrant of I-15/SR-91 interchange. • Norco, east of I-15 between 5th and 6th Streets. • Norco, east of I-15 between 6th and Detroit Streets. • Norco, east of I-15 between Detroit Street and Santa Ana River. • Norco, west of I-15 between Detroit Street and Santa Ana River. As concluded in Section 2.2.7, Noise, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not increase noise levels substantially; however, with the implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), noise levels approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA for Activity Category B and C land uses at 28 modeled receptors representative of 54 areas of frequent human use. Therefore, noise barriers were evaluated at these locations for the project; however, the noise barriers were found not to be reasonable from a cost perspective. Additional information is found in Section 2.2.7, Noise. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would include signage that may alter the visual quality of the area. The visual analysis in Section 2.1.8, Visual and Aesthetics, identifies the overall visual resource changes to be low to moderately low with the implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), which equates to a low to moderately low visual Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-91 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice impact. The visual character of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would be fully compatible with the existing visual character of the corridor. The northern and central sections of the corridor, where the minority and low-income populations of concern are concentrated, are built-up urban environments, with the freeway itself being a dominant visual feature. Any visually noticeable changes to the freeway with the implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) are considered to have low to moderate visual impacts. Based on the discussion above, there would not be any indirect visual impacts on populations of concern within the study area during operation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). The project would not alter or impact public and community facilities. With implementation of a TMP, neither long-term operations nor short-term construction activities would impact access to neighborhood communities. Therefore, there would be no impacts on public and community facilities that would impact environmental justice populations. The project proposes to construct one or two express lanes in each direction within the freeway median. Neither the operation of these lanes nor their construction would fragment nearby communities or in any other way impact community and neighborhood cohesion. The project would not substantially change travel patterns. Therefore, there would be no impacts on community cohesion with the project and, therefore, no disproportionate impacts on populations of concern. Potential Project Impacts on Minority and Low -Income Populations in the Region The project would add express lanes to 14.6 miles of the regional highway system, and would therefore result in transportation impacts on minority and low-income users located not only in the DIA, but throughout the region. The ERA was developed to capture the majority of likely users of the 1-15 freeway and is used for this evaluation. The following sections focus on examining the potential impacts of the project that may affect travelers' decisions or ability to change their behavior, and they evaluate whether these impacts have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income travelers in the region. These potential impacts include regional commuting patterns, commuter mode choice, congestion and travel time, and cost of travel. Regional Commuting Patterns Impacts The project does not create, relocate, or remove any existing origins or destinations such as housing, employment centers, or retail centers. It is likely that commuters and other travelers currently using the I-15 corridor would continue to do so. The project would not directly or indirectly change the propensity for the overall population, minority populations, or low-income populations to modify their destinations and general commute or travel patterns within or outside of their county of residence. Therefore, the project would have no impact on regional commuting patterns for the overall population, low-income populations, or minority populations. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-92 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Means of Transportation to Work Impacts As described above, the majority of commuters in the ERA drive alone. Approximately 13 percent carpool, two percent take transit, and slightly fewer than three percent commute by some other mode. Generally, minority and low-income populations have a higher propensity to carpool and use transit than non -minorities and higher -income commuters. The project does not have a direct effect on users' means of transportation to work; however, implementation of express lanes may influence the mode choices travelers make After implementation of the SR-91 express lanes, more commuters shifted from solo driving to HOV use in the first year of express lane operation (Sullivan 2000), indicating that express lanes do not discourage use of carpools by giving travelers the benefit of driving alone while still maintaining reliable travel times. According to Sullivan's 2000 Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR 91 Value - Priced Express Lanes evaluating the impacts of the SR-91 Express Lanes, HOV uses are more likely than single occupancy vehicles to choose to use the express lane. Thirty-four percent of HOV3+ users cite cost sharing as a principal motivation in ride sharing. Additionally, even with a 50 percent discount offered to HOV3+ users, the difference in proportion of HOV2 and HOV3+ users the express lanes is not statistically significant. Since a greater proportion of low- income and minority users already opt to carpool, the implementation of the project would not disproportionately affect their choice of means of transportation to work. It is unclear how implementation of an express lane project affects shifts between other modes. For example, after the implementation of the Metro Express Lanes, there was increase in ridership on the Silver Line Bus; however, that specific mode shift was likely primarily due to the implementation of new service and not the express lanes (USDOT 2014). It is unlikely that implementation of the project would have a distinct impact on the ability to use alternate modes of transportation for the population overall, or for minority or low-income populations. Travel Behavior Impacts The project does not directly change travel behavior; however, implementation of a tolled express lane may influence changes in travel behavior. This includes distributing traffic volumes from peak to off-peak times. For example, on I-15 in San Diego where express lanes were implemented, single occupancy traffic using the express lane was distributed from peak hour to "shoulder" hours, presumably because of the reduced cost of express lane use over the shoulder periods (Supernak 2001 et al.). The same study showed that HOV volumes had less of a shift in time of day. Express lanes may also entice more drivers to use the highway due to more efficient use of highway capacity. SR-91 saw an increase in traffic counts after implementation of express lanes, which was likely a result of traffic returning to the highway from local roads (Sullivan 2000). Increased highway volumes are not likely to affect low-income or minority groups any differently than the population as a whole. There is no specific research that shows that minority or low-income drivers are more likely to change travel behavior in order to pay less or realize the benefit of the express lanes; however, any monetary benefit gained by low-income populations would be a higher percentage of their income than the benefit to higher -income populations. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-93 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Traffic Congestion and Travel Time Impacts The I-15 corridor currently does not have express lanes or HOV lanes, and all users of the facility are subject to traffic congestion and slow travel speeds. One goal of the project's implementation is to provide a guaranteed faster moving, congestion -free and free -flowing lane option such that highway users can choose to use the tolled express lane at any time to avoid slow speeds and travel delays in the general purpose lanes and improve predictability of travel time. A secondary outcome includes improved traffic movement in the general purpose lanes by redistributing traffic flows among lanes and throughout periods of time. As noted above, commuting population within the ERA predominantly drives alone; however, greater proportions of lower -income and minority populations carpool. By using the HOV lanes, where available, carpoolers are provided a more reliable means of travel. Low-income and minority populations can choose to pay the fee to improve the level of service of their travel and experience lesser congestion and more reliable travel time. Low-income and minority populations who cannot use the express lane would not incur a change for their travel; however, congestion in the general purpose lanes is expected to improve as traffic shifts to the extra capacity in the express lane. With implementation of the project, a minimum speed of 45 miles per hour would be maintained in the express lane. This guarantees a user an improved and more reliable travel time with use of the lane. Traffic data suggests that travel times would also improve in the general purpose lanes. Regardless of income or minority status, users choosing to drive in the express lane or the general purpose lane facilities would experience similar impacts to other users of the same facilities. Cost of Travel Impacts Operation of the project would provide an opportunity for HOV3+ carpoolers to access the express lanes for a reduced fee or potentially free and for single -occupant and HOV2 freeway users to access the express lanes for a fee. There would be no direct impact to cost of travel for those who opt to not use the express lane; however, the decision to use the express lane increases the cost of travel for the user. Levying a fee may create potential inequities to low-income single -occupancy freeway users who are less able to afford express lanes than higher -income users. This potential discrepancy applies to low-income populations, and not minority populations, because there is no limiting factor to pay the fee, acquire or use a toll tag, and use the express lanes based on minority status. The analysis of low-income populations includes people of all races, including minorities and non -minorities. The decision to use the express lane (i.e., change the cost of travel in order to improve travel time) depends on users' ability and willingness to pay the toll and to obtain a toll tag (also known as a transponder). In 2004, the Public Policy Institute of California reported that low-income households spend approximately 13 percent of their budget on transportation in general, and that for those households that use personal vehicles the percentage is much higher (19 percent). For non -low- income households, the percentages were only slightly higher overall (15 percent) and slightly lower for personal vehicle users (16 percent). The 2011 study Getting Around When You 're Just Getting By: The Travel Behavior and Transportation Expenditures of Low -Income Adults Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-94 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice published by the Mineta Transportation Institute (Agrawal et al. 2011) reported that in 2008 lower income households spent slightly less than other households on transportation as a percentage of total expenditures: 15 percent on average for the lowest -income quintile versus an average of 17 percent for all households. Transportation expenditures comprise a significant portion of household budgets regardless of income level. The Mineta Transportation Institute study also reported that low-income travelers were like higher -income travelers in that they carefully evaluate the costs of travel, time, out-of-pocket expenditures, and benefits. In the study, low-income interviewees were asked if there were any situations in which they could imagine choosing to use the HOT lane when it was priced at $5 a trip or, for those who said yes, at $10 a trip. More respondents said they could imagine using the lanes at least occasionally than flatly stating they would never do so, and about half of the interviewees who thought they would use the lane at a cost of $5 also said they might use it at $10. Respondents stated generally that they would more likely use HOT lanes occasionally rather than regularly. Many cited emergencies, work -related travel, and bad traffic as reasons to use HOT lanes. While this benefit is a motivating factor for all users, it is particularly beneficial to those who would otherwise incur a larger cost if they were late to their destination. Express lanes increase the options available to low-income and minority drivers, since there may be occasions when the cost of an express lane trip would be lower than the opportunity cost of lost wages by arriving late to work or additional fees when picking up a child from a childcare center after hours. Providing low-income populations as well as the population as a whole with this option, whether they choose it on a regular basis or just in emergency situations, is a benefit and would not adversely impact their travel time. A 1999 study that evaluated the impacts of the SR-91 express lanes reveals that the proportion of commuters in 1999 that stated they were frequent users of the SR-91 express lanes increased steadily with income for both solo drives and carpoolers (Sullivan 2000). Based on 842 respondents, the study found that about 18 percent of low-income (<$40,000/year) solo drivers used the express lanes frequently, compared to about 45 percent of high -income (>$100,000/year) solo drivers. Another 14 percent of the low-income solo drivers used the facility infrequently while 68 percent never used it all. Usage among middle -income solo drivers ($40,000 to $80,000 per year) was similar to low-income drivers, with 19 percent of solo drivers frequently using the express lanes and 62 percent of drivers never using the express lanes. This study showed that low-income drivers were about as willing to pay the toll to access the express lane as middle -income drivers. The majority of commuters (regardless of income) are not everyday users (Sullivan 2000). The ability and willingness to pay the toll to travel in the express lane does not disproportionately affect low-income I-15 users more than the general population of users. Both low-income and the general population weigh the cost and benefits of their choices. In different situations, the cost and perceived benefits of using the express lane would be different for different people and the express lane is an option for both groups at all times. Additionally, since low-income populations have a greater propensity for carpooling, they would be able to use the express lane at a reduced fee or potentially free. Carpoolers also get the added benefit of cost sharing to reduce per/person costs. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-95 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Express lane users need to have a toll tag to use the lane as a paying customer. It is anticipated that HOV3+ users would qualify for access to the express lanes at a reduced fee or for free. They would need to have a switchable toll tag to declare their HOV status. Currently, express lanes operate on SR-91 in Orange County between the Riverside County border and SR-55, on I-110 and I-10 in Los Angeles County, and on I-15 in San Diego, and drivers in the region are generally familiar with the requirement to have a FasTrak® tag. For most systems, there is an up -front cost to acquire a toll tag and most systems also require a pre -paid balance from which tolls are deducted. These requirements can make it difficult for many low-income persons especially those who do not have bank accounts, debit cards, or credit cards —to acquire a toll tag and maintain an account balance. Many express lane system operators encourage users to set up an account through an online application process using a credit card. In this type of application process, the user typically pays for the purchase, lease, or deposit for the toll tag as well as the initial required minimum pre -paid toll amount for the tag account. A toll tag is then mailed to the customer. The account is monitored and replenished through an online account accessed with a password and PIN number. Some operators also make toll tags available for sale at retail locations. In this case, toll tags may be purchased with cash or check, and the user subsequently registers the toll tag online or via telephone or mail. With all of the systems in operation in California, there is no purchase fee to the customer to obtain toll tags. Cash users may be required to provide a deposit for use of the toll tag. The toll charges accrue to the toll tag account and are paid through various methods. Typically, the toll tag account is linked to a bank account, debit card, or credit card. Without toll tag accounts, users may pay higher toll rates and/or may be charged an additional processing fee to cover the cost of recording users by license plate number and mailing out an invoice to the vehicle owner. Some tolling programs allow infrequent users to establish a license plate payment account. Others manage non -toll tag account users through police enforcement and violation penalties. A number of studies have found that many low- and lower -income users do not have bank accounts, debit cards, or credit cards (Buchanan 2007, National League of Cities 2011, New York Times 2012). The common business practices and costs for setting up and managing a toll tag account limit the access to toll tag accounts from populations who do not have credit, debit cards, or a bank account, and who may not have the income to pay for the deposit or maintain a minimum account balance. Surveys of express lanes in operation show lower toll tag ownership rates among lower income households, and lower toll tag ownership among minority users. The "unbanked population" includes other population groups as well (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 2008). They may be new immigrants who do not have sufficient personal identification or language skills to set up a bank account. They may mistrust financial institutions because of their cultural background or for other reasons. A 2008 study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimated that 22 million persons nationwide lack basic bank checking and savings accounts. In 2012, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published its 2011 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. The survey found that 8.2 percent of all households in the U.S. are unbanked. The survey showed that unbanked rates are higher among non -Asian minority households than other racial and ethnic groups, and highest Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-96 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice among foreign -born non -citizens (22.2 percent). Nearly 20 percent of all households with income less than $30,000 are unbanked. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study reported banking statistics for individual Metropolitan Statistical Areas. In the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area, 12.7 percent of the population is unbanked. Many operators of express lane systems across the country have implemented strategies to expand access to toll tags, especially for those who do not have credit cards or a bank account. The requirement to obtain a toll tag may have a greater impact on the ability of low-income and minority populations to choose to use the express lane. However, if strategies are implemented to make obtaining and operating a toll tag easier, it is not anticipated this requirement would have a greater impact on the choices of minority or low-income populations to use the express lanes than of the population overall. Impacts and Benefits of the Express Lane System for Minority and Low -Income Populations The project, as part of a system of express lanes in southern California that includes SR-91 in Orange, I-110 and I-10 in Los Angeles, and I-15 in San Diego, would provide an opportunity for single -occupant vehicles and HOV2s to access carpool lanes for a fee. The toll would be determined to ensure that free -flow traffic, i.e., traffic moving at least 45 miles per hour, is maintained at all times. It is anticipated that HOV3+ users would access the lanes for free or at a reduced rate. As discussed above, there are transportation benefits and impacts to both the general population and low-income populations with the project. Studies have been conducted following the construction and start of operation of express lanes (see the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 [Caltrans 2015a]). Public concerns about equity issues were found to decrease over time as users became familiar with the express lanes (literature review from Metro 2010), and project support tended to remain high even with transit users (Georgia Department of Transportation 2010, NuStats 2006). The 1999 study of the SR-91 express lanes found that public support was generally not sensitive to household income except for the highest -income groups (greater than $100,000), which tended to be more strongly in favor of express lanes (Sullivan 2000). These surveys of express lane use indicate low-income drivers pay tolls to use express lanes, but they do not pay tolls as frequently as higher -income households. This shows that low-income drivers may find it worthwhile to pay the toll in some situations even though it may be a greater burden on their household budget than it would be for higher -income households. Evaluation of Potential Disproportionate Adverse Direct Impacts The project would not result in direct impacts on populations near the project segments in the DIA, which contains all census tracts within one -quarter mile of the project limits. The construction activities associated with the project would not result in adverse environmental or land use/social impacts. The DIA of the I-15 corridor includes several census tracts that are environmental justice communities of concern; however, these sections of the DIA would not likely experience any direct impacts, and none of the project impacts would be borne by these communities in particular, as compared to other communities. Therefore, the project would not result in disproportionate adverse direct impacts for minority and low-income populations. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-97 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice Evaluation of Potential Disproportionate Adverse Transportation and Economic Impacts Operation of the project and the options it provides to drivers along the project freeways would affect transportation usage; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the express lanes would in any way substantially degrade existing travel choices. The project would improve transportation operations along these freeways by maximizing the capacity of the system by providing reduced -rate or potentially free HOV3+ carpool lanes and allowing solo or HOV2 drivers to access the lanes for a fee. For drivers opting to pay the fee to use the carpool lane, they would experience less congestion and a decrease in travel time. This benefit of the project is available to all users; however, this option for low-income populations may have great benefit at times when their travel is very time -sensitive and the low fee to reach their destination sooner would ultimately be less than the cost of lost wages or late fees at a childcare center. There would be no degradation in travel time or congestion with the project for travelers within the general purpose lanes. Therefore, the project would not result in disproportionate adverse transportation impacts for minority and low-income populations. To take advantage of the transportation benefits provided by the project, it is likely that the user must incur a fee (unless a free HOV 3+ option is incorporated). The data and analysis presented in the previous sections reveal that most people understand this benefit; however, the financial hardship associated with obtaining a toll tag and paying the fee to access the express lane depends on income levels. Similar to other agencies that have implemented express lanes across the country, RCTC would implement an extensive program similar to that implemented by Orange County Transportation Authority for SR-91 express lanes, to allow customers to obtain a toll tag and pay the fees in several ways. Lower -income drivers who may lack a credit card or bank account would still have alternative means of obtaining a toll tag and paying fees to access the express lanes. For lower -income drivers who set up a toll account and choose to use the express lanes, even only in emergencies, the fee would be balanced with the potential larger cost of being late to a destination. The choice to not use the express lanes does not result in any financial impact to freeway users. Carpoolers (HOV3+) may not be required to pay a fee to access the express lanes; nonetheless, they would be required to obtain a switchable toll tag so they can declare their eligibility to use the express lanes for free or at a reduced rate. The I-15 corridor does not have carpool lanes currently, and the existing general purpose lanes would not change with the project. Solo/H0V2 drivers would still be able to use the general purpose lanes with the project. Moreover, the potential exists for overall freeway operations to improve with the express lanes; as more cars move from general purpose lanes to the express lanes with additional capacity, drivers in general purpose lanes may experience less congestion. With improved freeway operations and less overall congestion, potential gasoline savings may be realized by all drivers, including lower - income and minority drivers who continue to use general purpose lanes. The project results in a number of potential benefits for low-income drivers as well as some potential economic impacts for lower -income drivers who may experience a financial hardship in obtaining a toll tag or using express lanes. Since the project would provide a choice for solo/H0V2 drivers to access the express lanes for a fee and may allow carpoolers (HOV3+) to access them for free or at a reduced rate, with no changes to the free general purpose lanes, low- income drivers who choose to use the facility would perceive benefits that outweigh the cost while low-income drivers who choose to not use the facility would experience no change. The Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-98 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Environmental Justice project would not result in disproportionate adverse economic impacts to minority and low- income populations. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, no construction would occur. Therefore, no direct or indirect adverse short-term impacts would occur that could adversely affect environmental justice populations in the study area. 2.1.5.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the above discussion and analysis, the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) and No -Build Alternatives will not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations per EO 12898 regarding environmental justice. Implementation of measure EJ-1, below, would minimize any potential impacts on toll tag access and payment under the Build Alternative. EJ-1: A program will be implemented for the I-15 Tolled Express Lanes to allow customers to obtain a toll tag and pay toll tag fees in several ways. It is anticipated that this program will be similar to the Orange County Transportation Authority's SR-91 Express Lanes Program. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-99 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services 2.1.6 Utilities/Emergency Services 2.1.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Unless otherwise noted, the information used in this section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Community Impact Assessment, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015a). Utilities Public utilities and services include gas and electrical power, telecommunications, water supply, and sewer. Utility providers in the area include: City of Corona, Caltrans, Southern California Edison, Western Municipal Water District, Southern California Gas, Pacific Bell, and various cable television companies (e.g., Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Sunesys). Emergency Services Fire protection services within the project study area are provided by Riverside County and Corona, and Norco Fire Departments, as well as the U.S. Forest Service. Police services are provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Corona Police Department, and Norco Police Department. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department and Fire Department provides services for those residents in the cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, and the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Table 2-28 lists all the emergency services that are located within 0.5 mile of the project limits. There are no hospitals within 0.5 mile of the project. Table 2-28. Emergency Services within 0.5 Mile of the Project Emergency Services Location Fire U.S. Forest Service — Corona Fire Station 1148 East 6th Street, Corona Corona Fire Station #7 3777 Beauford Canyon Road, Corona Riverside County Fire Department 1511 Hamner Avenue, Norco Police Norco Police Department 2870 Clark Avenue, Norco Ambulance Mission Ambulance 1055 East 3rd Street, Corona Source: Google Earth 2013; City of Norco 2014; City of Corona 2014. 2.1.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not require the acquisition of right of way that may require the relocation of utilities. During construction, the project would require conduit connections to existing power sources, which may include private utility companies. However, no disruption of utilities for electrical connection to existing power sources is anticipated. Therefore, no direct or indirect short-term adverse impacts on utilities for electrical connection to existing power sources are anticipated during the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), and no measures are required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-100 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services In addition, there are a number of utilities that cross the I-15 right of way within the project limits Table 2-29 identifies the utilities that are located along the project alignment that could be impacted by construction of the project. Utilities that would require relocation due to construction conflicts would be relocated in the same general area and within the existing state right of way, pursuant to utility provider's requirements. Table 2-29. Utilities within the Project Limits Owner Utility Location AT&T OH tel 1050' south of Cajalco Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1050' south of Cajalco Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 37' south of Cajalco Road IC/crossing Cajalco Road IC (PM 36.80) City of Corona 12" water In 24" casing 1725' north of Cajalco Road IC/crossing City of Corona 14" reclaimed water in 24" casing 1735' north of Cajalco Road IC/crossing City of Corona 6" sewer in 16" casing 1745' north of Cajalco Road IC/crossing City of Corona 15" sewer in 24" casing 1750' north of Cajalco Road IC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) 1665' south of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1657' south of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing AT&T OH tel 1180' south of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1174' south of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing City of Corona 10" water (ACP) 1170' south of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing Metropolitan Water District 108" HP Water 1028' south of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) In El Cerrito Road City of Corona 12" Water PVC In El Cerrito Road El Cerrito Road IC (PM 37.82) Southern California Gas 6" gas In El Cerrito Road City of Corona 16" reclaimed water In El Cerrito Road City of Corona 12" water PVC In El Cerrito Road City of Corona 10" water in 12" casing 1930' north of El Cerrito Road IC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) 1750' south of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing City of Corona 12" water (ACP) 1735' south of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing Southern California Gas 2" gas 1726' south of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 1696' south of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing Southern California Gas 2" gas In Taber Street Southern California Edison OH power 1553' south of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 1487' to 724' south of Ontario Avenue IC/ RT potentially outside existing R/W AT&T Tel (conduit) In Ontario Avenue City of Corona 30" water in casing In Ontario Avenue City of Corona 8" sewer (PVC) In Ontario Avenue City of Corona 16" water In Ontario Avenue Level 3 Communications Fiber optic In Ontario Avenue Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) In Ontario Avenue City of Corona 20" water In Ontario Avenue Elsinore Valley Municipal 42" water In Ontario Avenue Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-101 Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services Owner Utility Location Water District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Sewer In Ontario Avenue Ontario Avenue IC (PM 38.69) Southern California Gas 4" gas In Ontario Avenue Southern California Gas 8" gas In Ontario Avenue Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) In Ontario Avenue City of Corona 24" water CP 110' north of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing City of Corona 24" water CP 110' to 250' north of Ontario Avenue IC/RT of construction CL City of Corona 24" water CP 250' north of Ontario Avenue IC/crossing Southern California Gas 2" gas in casing 1030' south of Old Temescal Road UC/crossing City of Corona 8" water In Old Temescal Road Old Temescal Road UC (PM 39.40) Southern California Edison OH power 50' north of Old Temescal Road UC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 95' north of Old Temescal Road UC/RT of construction CL Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 64' south of Magnolia IC/crossing City of Corona 10" water 60' south to 940' north of Magnolia Avenue I C/crossing Magnolia Avenue IC (PM 40.35) AT&T Tel (conduit) 3' north of Magnolia Avenue IC/crossing City of Corona Water 20' north of Magnolia Avenue IC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) (abandoned) 63' north of Magnolia Avenue IC/crossing City of Corona 10" water 982' north of Magnolia Avenue IC/crossing City of Corona 10" water 1013' north of Magnolia Avenue IC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) In 6th Street Southern California Gas 6" gas In 6th Street City of Corona 6" water In 6th Street East 6th Street UC (PM 40.96) Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) In 6th Street AT&T Tel (conduit) In 6th Street City of Corona 18" sewer In 6th Street City of Corona 18" sewer 144' north of E. 6th Street UC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) 1058' north of E. 6th Street UC/crossing City of Corona 8" water 1066' north of E. 6th Street UC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit + casing) 1098' north of E. 6th Street UC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) 1150' south of I-15/SR-91 IC/crossing City of Corona Sewer 1089' south of I-15/SR-91 IC/crossing City of Corona Sewer 1079' south of I-15/SR-91 IC/crossing I-15/SR-91 Fwy IC (PM 41.48) City of Corona 6" water In Parkridge Avenue Time -Warner Cable TV (conduit) In Parkridge Avenue Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) In Parkridge Avenue AT&T Tel (conduit) In Parkridge Avenue Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-102 Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services Owner Utility Location Parkridge Avenue UC (PM 41.82) City of Corona Sewer In Parkridge Avenue Southern California Gas Gas In Parkridge Avenue City of Corona Water In Parkridge Avenue City of Corona Reclaimed water In Parkridge Avenue City of Corona 60" water 50' right to 470' Lt north of Parkridge Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Gas 30" HP gas 904' north of Parkridge Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Gas 16" HP gas 1003' north of Parkridge Avenue UC/crossing FCPLC 16" crude oil 1010' north of Parkridge Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1398' north of Parkridge Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1408' north of Parkridge Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 980' south of Corona Avenue UC/crossing Time -Warner Cable TV (conduit) In Corona Avenue AT&T Tel (conduit) In Corona Avenue Corona Avenue UC (PM42.45) 11. City of Corona 6" water In Corona Avenue Southern California Gas Gas In Corona Avenue Time -Warner Cable TV (conduit) In Corona Avenue City of Corona Sewer In Corona Avenue Southern California Edison OH power 975' north of Corona Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 990' north of Corona Avenue UC/crossing Southern California Gas Gas 738' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing Time -Warner Cable TV (conduit) 720' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 707' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing City of Corona 6" water 696' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing City of Corona 10" water (abandoned) 622' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing AT&T Tel (abandoned) 579' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing AT&T Tel (conduit) 11' south of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing Hidden Valley Parkway IC ( PM W 42.88 ) Southern California Gas Gas 4' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing City of Corona Water 13' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing City of Corona 6" water 41' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE (conduit) 74' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1232' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing AT&T OH tel 1239' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing City of Corona 6" water 1243' north of Hidden Valley Pkwy IC/crossing Second Street IC (PM 43.64) AT&T (Pac Bell) Tel In 2nd Street Charter Comm (Cencom Cable) TV In 2nd Street Southern California Edison UGE In 2nd Street Charter Communications Fiber optic In 2nd Street City of Norco Sewer In 2nd Street City of Norco Water In 2nd Street Southern California Gas Gas In 2nd Street Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-103 Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services Owner Utility Location Caltrans UGE In 2nd Street Caltrans UGE In 2nd Street City of Norco (Abandoned) Water In 3rd Street City of Norco Water In 3rd Street Elsinore Valley MWD Sewer In 3rd Street City of Norco Third Street OC (PM 44.12) Elsinore Valley MWD Sewer Water In 3rd Street In 3rd Street AT&T (Pac Bell) Tel In 3rd Street Charter Comm (Cencom Cable) TV In 3rd Street Southern California Edison UGE In 3rd Street Southern California Gas Gas 3rd Street outside -NB Southern California Gas Gas 3rd Street outside -NB Southern California Gas Gas 675' south of 4th Street OC/SB outside of 1-15 City of Norco (abandoned) Water In 4th Street City of Norco Water In 4th Street City of Norco Sewer 50' south of 4th Street OC to 20' south of 5th Street OC/SB outside of I-15 City of Norco (abandoned) Sewer In 4th Street Fourth Street OC (PM 44.66) Southern California Gas Gas 4th Street - outside City of Norco (Abandoned) Water In 4th Street Southern California Edison UGE In 4th Street AT&T (Pac Bell) Tel In 4th Street AT&T (Pac Bell) (abandoned) Tel In 4th Street Southern California Gas Gas In 4th Street Fifth Street OC (PM 45.14) Southern California Gas Gas In 5th Street AT&T Tel In 5th Street City of Norco UGE In 5th Street Southern California Edison Sixth Street IC (PM 45.60) Southern California Edison OH Power UGE 50' north of 5th Street OC/crossing In 6th Street City of Norco Water In 6th Street AT&T (Pac Bell), CATV Tel In 6th Street Charter Communications Tel In 6th Street Detroit Street OC (PM 45.89) Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Sewer In Detroit Street Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Water In Detroit Street Southern California Edison UGE In Detroit Street Southern California Edison OH power 645' north of Detroit Street OC/SB Southern California Edison OH power 1100' north of Detroit Street OC/SB Southern California Edison OH power 1275' north of Detroit Street OC/crossing Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-104 Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services Owner Utility Location AT&T (Pac Bell) Tel In 68th Street Jurupa Community Services District Water In 68th Street Sixty Eighth Street OC (PM 47.52) Southern California Edison UGE In 68th Street Southern California Edison OH power 50' north of 68th Street OC/crossing Southern California Gas Gas NB/Limonite Avenue Jurupa Community Services District Water In Limonite Avenue Limonite Ave IC (PM 48.26) AT&T Tel In Limonite Avenue Southern California Edison UGE In Limonite Avenue Southern California Gas Gas 180' to 680' north of Limonite Ave IC/SB Southern California Gas Gas 180' north of Limonite Avenue IC/crossing Southern California Gas Gas 575' north of Limonite Avenue IC/crossing Verizon (GTE) Tel 2658' north of Limonite Avenue IC/crossing Verizon (GTE) OH Tel 3042' to 20' south of Bellegrave Avenue OC/NB Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Sewer 28' south of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE In Bellegrave Avenue Jurupa Community Services District Water In Bellegrave Avenue Bellegrave Avenue OC (PM 49.36) Southern California Gas Gas 20' south to 1480' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/SB outside Verizon (GTE) Tel In Bellegrave Avenue Southern California Edison UGE In Bellegrave Avenue Southern California Gas Gas 55' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 90' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Verizon (GTE) OH Tel 93' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Jurupa Community Services District Water 134' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Chino Basin Desalter Authority Water 144' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Jurupa Community Services District Sewer 160' north of Bellegrave Avenue OC/crossing Verizon (GTE) OH Tel, Tel 1837' south of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power, UGE 1837' south of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road IC/crossing AT&T (SBC) Tel In Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Jurupa Community Services District Water In Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Jurupa Community Services District Water In Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Cantu Galleano Ranch Road IC (PM 50.13) Jurupa Community Services District Water In Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Southern California Edison UGE In Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Southern California Gas Gas In Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-105 Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services Owner Utility Location Southern California Edison OH power 760' north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 852' north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 888' north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road IC/crossing Southern California Edison OH power 1123' south of I-15/SR-60 IC/crossing Southern California Edison UGE 1109' south of I-15/SR-60 IC/crossing Riverside Drive UC (PM 51.26) CL = centerline, IC = interchange, OC = overcrossing, OH = overhead, RT = right, RAN = right of way, UC = undercrossing, UGE = underground electrical, tel = telephone. Source: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Draft Project Report, February 2015 (Caltrans 2015d). Anticipated utility relocations have been accounted for in the impact area that was developed for the project and analyses. Depending on the level of effects, these facilities would need to be protected, adjusted/modified, or relocated. The affected utilities would be relocated within the existing right of way and in accordance with federal and state law and regulations and county and city policies. Ongoing coordination will continue between Caltrans, Riverside County, cities, affected agencies, and utility companies in order to minimize potential disruption of utility service. It is not anticipated that any residential utility services would be affected by the project. Final determinations of impacts on utilities and relocation requirements, if any, will be completed during the initial design portion of the design -build phase of the project. Any updated utility search would be conducted during final design to confirm all utility conflicts that require protection in place or relocation are addressed. Utility companies typically do not approve such relocation until the final design phase of the project, and there is the potential that relocations and resulting impacts could vary. If the ultimate utility relocations would create additional environmental impacts beyond those identified in this analysis, then additional environmental analysis would be required. The current analysis is based upon preliminary engineering efforts to date. During construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), emergency service vehicle access through the project limits and surrounding communities may be impacted. Impacts would be avoided or minimized through the implementation of the TMP discussed in measure C-1 in Section 2.1.4, Community Impacts, which is standard practice for all Caltrans projects. Permanent No direct or indirect permanent impacts on utilities or emergency services would result from implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). No -Build Alternative With the No -Build Alternative, there would be no changes to utilities or emergency services from the existing condition, and construction would not occur to affect emergency service access. As congestion increases with anticipated growth in the corridor, emergency service response times may increase under the No -Build Alternative. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-106 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Utilities/Emergency Services 2.1.6.3 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES Refer to measure C-1, identified previously in Section 2.1.4, Community Impacts. Implementation of measure C-1 would help avoid or minimize potential impacts on emergency service vehicle access during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-107 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2.1.7 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2.1.7.1 REGULATORY SETTING The Department, as assigned by FHWA, directs that full consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of federal -aid highway projects (see 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must be considered in all federal -aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility. In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued an Accessibility Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible multimodal transportation system. Accessibility in federally assisted programs is governed by the USDOT regulations (49 CFR Part 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 United States Code [USC] 794). FHWA has enacted regulations for the implementation of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including a commitment to build transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. These regulations require application of the ADA requirements to federal -aid projects, including Transportation Enhancement Activities. 2.1.7.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Unless otherwise noted, the information from this section was synthesized from the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report, May 2014 (Caltrans 2014a). Study Area and Analysis Scenarios The traffic study area includes all freeway segments, local interchanges, and ramp terminus intersections along I-15 from just north of Cajalco Road interchange to the San Bernardino County Line. It also includes the system interchanges of I-15 with SR-91 and SR-60, as well as adjacent intersections on either side of each local interchange. The following local interchanges, from south to north, have been included in the project study corridor: • Weirick Road (beyond the limits of the proposed roadway improvements) • Cajalco Road • El Cerrito Road • Ontario Avenue • Magnolia Avenue • Hidden Valley Parkway • 2nd Street • 6th Street • Schleisman Road (future interchange) Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-108 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • Limonite Avenue • Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Traffic operations analyses were conducted for the study area under the following five scenarios: • Existing (2013) Conditions • Opening Year 2020 No -Build Conditions • Opening Year 2020 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Conditions • Design Year 2040 No -Build Conditions • Design Year 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM (6:00-9:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00-7:00 p.m.) peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at all study intersections in January and February 2013. Detailed vehicle classification counts (passenger vehicles, buses, two -axle trucks, three -axle trucks, and trucks with four or more axles) were conducted at all study intersections. Traffic volumes at these intersections were converted to passenger car equivalent (PCE) volumes to represent the greater impact that trucks have on traffic operations because of their greater size and generally slower acceleration than passenger vehicles. PCE is defined as the impact that a type of vehicle has on traffic variables (such as headway, speed, density) compared to a single car. A PCE factor of 1.5 was used for two -axle trucks, 2.0 was used for buses and three -axle trucks, and 3.0 was used for trucks with four or more axles. Peak hour volumes on I-15 mainline segments were based on classification counts conducted on Bellegrave Avenue in January 2013. The remaining freeway segment volumes were calculated by adding and subtracting ramp volumes at each interchange. Truck percentages on the freeway were determined based on a visual vehicle classification count conducted at the Bellegrave Avenue overcrossing in January 2013. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes (vehicles) at the study intersections are illustrated in Figures 3.2.1-1 a and 3.2.1-1 b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes (PCE) at the study intersections are illustrated in Figures 3.2.1-2a and 3.2.1-2b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes (vehicles) along the freeway mainline are summarized in Table 2-30, and freeway ramp volumes are summarized in Table 2-31. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-109 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Table 2-30. Existing (2013) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes on Freeway Mainline Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour** PM Peak Hour** Volume Truck % Volume Truck % 1-15 Northbound Weirick Road off -ramp to Weirick Road on -ramp 3,491 5% 3,262 10% Weirick on -ramp to Cajalco Road off -ramp 4,486 4% 3,937 9% Cajalco Road off -ramp to Cajalco Road on -ramp 4,356 4% 3,632 9% Cajalco Road on -ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp 5,619 4% 4,266 8% El Cerrito Road off -ramp to El Cerrito Road on -ramp 5,185 4% 4,027 8% El Cerrito Road on -ramp to Ontario Avenue off -ramp 5,896 4% 4,272 8% Ontario Avenue off -ramp to lane addition 4,801 4% 3,794 9% Lane addition to Ontario Avenue on -ramp 4,801 4% 3,794 9% Ontario Avenue on -ramp to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp 5,684 4% 4,692 7% Magnolia Avenue off -ramp to Magnolia Avenue loop on- ramp 4,521 4% 4,177 8% Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp to Magnolia Avenue on- ramp 5,252 4% 5,265 6% Magnolia Avenue WB on -ramp to SR-91 EB/WB off -ramp 5,441 6% 5,904 6% SR-91 EB/WB off -ramp to SR-91 WB on -ramp 2,868 6% 2,483 8% SR-91 WB on -ramp to SR-91 EB on -ramp 4,051 5% 3,669 6% SR-91 EB on -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp 5,783 5% 5,173 6% Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp 4,972 5% 4,659 7% Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 2nd Street off -ramp 5,637 5% 5,465 6% 2nd Street off -ramp to lane deletion 4,682 5% 4,611 7% Lane deletion to 2nd Street on -ramp 4,682 5% 4,611 7% 2nd Street on -ramp to 6th Street off -ramp 4,997 6% 5,137 6% 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on -ramp 4,562 6% 4,498 7% 6th Street on -ramp to Limonite Avenue off -ramp 5,335 5% 5,224 6% Limonite Avenue off -ramp to Limonite Avenue on -ramp 4,744 6% 4,002 8% Limonite Avenue on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp 5,773 5% 4,642 7% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp to express lane egress 5,563 5% 4,520 7% Express lane egress to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on- ramp 5,563 5% 4,520 7% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on -ramp SR-60 EB off -ramp 6,048 5% 4,918 7% SR-60 EB off-ramp/express lane egress to SR-60 WB off- ramp 5,204 6% 4,111 7% SR-60 WB off -ramp to lane drop 3,828 6% 3,086 7% Lane drop to SR-60 WB on -ramp 5,656 6% 4,482 6% SR-60 WB on -ramp to SR-60 EB on -ramp 5,656 6% 4,482 6% North of SR-60 EB on -ramp 7,622 8% 6,403 6% Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-110 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour** PM Peak Hour** Volume Truck % Volume Truck % 1-15 Southbound North of SR-60 off -ramp 6,505 8% 6,870 6% SR-60 off -ramp to lane addition 2,554 8% 3,503 5% Lane addition to SR-60 EB on -ramp 2,554 8% 3,503 5% SR-60 EB on -ramp to express lane ingress 3,702 10% 4,831 4% Express lane ingress to SR-60 WB on -ramp 3,702 10% 4,831 4% SR-60 WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off- ramp 4,448 10% 5,782 4% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp to lane deletion 4,097 10% 5,190 4% Lane deletion to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on -ramp 4,097 10% 5,190 4% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on -ramp 4,130 10% 5,318 4% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on -ramp to lane deletion 4,190 10% 5,548 4% Lane deletion to Limonite Avenue off -ramp 4,190 10% 5,548 4% Limonite Avenue off -ramp to Limonite Avenue on -ramp 3,650 10% 4,790 4% Limonite Avenue on -ramp to 6th Street off -ramp 4,547 9% 5,644 4% 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on -ramp 3,875 10% 4,897 4% 6th Street on -ramp to express lane egress 4,646 10% 5,462 4% Express lane egress to 2nd Street off -ramp 4,646 10% 5,462 4% 2nd Street off -ramp to lane addition 4,188 10% 5,119 4% Lane addition to 2nd Street on -ramp 4,188 10% 5,119 4% 2nd Street on -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp 4,768 10% 5,874 4% Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway on-ramp/express lane ingress 3,828 12% 5,165 4% Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to SR-91 WB off -ramp 4,317 12% 5,738 4% SR-91 WB off -ramp to SR-91 EB off -ramp 3,424 12% 3,981 4% SR-91 EB off -ramp to SR-91 EB on -ramp 2,356 16% 2,871 5% SR-91 EB on -ramp to SR-91 WB on -ramp 3,903 15% 5,033 4% SR-91 WB on -ramp to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp 5,238 13% 6,450 4% Magnolia Avenue off -ramp to Magnolia Avenue on- ramp/express lane egress 3,638 15% 5,122 3% Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to Ontario Avenue off -ramp 4,067 15% 5,825 3% Ontario Avenue off -ramp to Ontario Avenue on -ramp 2,945 19% 4,961 4% Ontario Avenue on -ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp 3,412 18% 5,838 3% El Cerrito Road off -ramp to El Cerrito Road on -ramp 3,080 20% 5,320 4% El Cerrito Road on -ramp to Cajalco Road off -ramp 3,447 18% 5,936 3% Cajalco Road off -ramp to Cajalco Road on -ramp 2,980 19% 5,067 4% Cajalco Road on -ramp to Weirick Road off -ramp 3,177 18% 5,508 3% Weirick Road off -ramp to Weirick Road on -ramp 2,671 20% 4,679 4% EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, SB=souhbound, NB=northbound. " peak periods = AM (6:00-9:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00-7:00 p.m.). Source: Approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report, May 2014 (Caltrans 2014a). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-111 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Table 2-31. Existing (2013) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes on Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Truck % Volume Truck % 1-15 Northbound Weirick Road off -ramp 147 3% 142 7% Weirick on -ramp 995 2% 675 3% Cajalco Road off -ramp 130 5% 305 3% Cajalco Road on -ramp 1,263 3% 634 1% El Cerrito Road/Foothill Parkway off -ramp 434 1% 239 1% El Cerrito Road/Foothill Parkway on -ramp 711 1% 245 1% Ontario Avenue off -ramp 1,095 2% 478 1% Ontario Avenue on -ramp 883 4% 898 2% Magnolia Avenue off -ramp 1,163 5% 515 6% Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp 731 4% 1,088 1% Magnolia Avenue on -ramp 189 70% 639 6% SR-91 WB/EB off -ramp 2,573 7% 3,421 5% SR-91 WB on -ramp 1,183 3% 1,186 2% SR-91 EB on -ramp 1,732 5% 1,504 6% Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp 811 2% 514 3% Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp 665 3% 806 2% 2nd Street off -ramp 955 4% 854 2% 2nd Street on -ramp 315 7% 526 2% 6th Street off -ramp 435 5% 639 2% 6th Street on -ramp 773 5% 726 2% Limonite Avenue off -ramp 591 4% 1,222 1% Limonite Avenue on -ramp 1,029 3% 640 3% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp 210 9% 122 13% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on -ramp 485 9% 398 10% SR-60 EB off -ramp 844 4% 807 7% SR-60 WB off -ramp 1,376 6% 1,025 7% SR-60 WB on -ramp 1,828 6% 1,396 4% SR-60 EB on -ramp 1,966 13% 1,921 7% 1-15 Southbound SR-60 off -ramp 3,951 8% 3,367 7% SR-60 EB on -ramp 1,148 12% 1,328 2% SR-60 WB on -ramp 746 10% 951 2% Canto Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp 351 7% 592 3% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on -ramp 33 30% 128 7% Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on -ramp 60 8% 230 1% Limonite Avenue off -ramp 540 9% 758 1% Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-112 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Ramp AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Truck % Volume Truck % Limonite Avenue on -ramp 897 7% 854 3% 6th Street off -ramp 672 4% 747 3% 6t" Street on -ramp 772 7% 565 4% 2nd Street off -ramp 458 5% 343 4% 2nd Street on -ramp 580 12% 755 4% Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp 940 3% 709 2% Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp 490 7% 574 3% SR-91 WB off -ramp 893 9% 1,757 3% SR-91 EB off -ramp 1,068 4% 1,110 2% SR-91 EB on -ramp 1,547 14% 2,162 3% SR-91 WB on -ramp 1,335 4% 1,417 1% Magnolia Avenue off -ramp 1,600 8% 1,328 4% Magnolia Avenue on -ramp 429 14% 703 2% Ontario Avenue off -ramp 1,122 3% 864 2% Ontario Avenue on -ramp 467 13% 877 2% El Cerrito Road off -ramp 332 2% 518 1% El Cerrito Road on -ramp 367 2% 616 1% Cajalco Road off -ramp 467 13% 869 1% Cajalco Road on -ramp 197 8% 441 1% Weirick Road off -ramp 506 7% 829 2% Weirick Road on -ramp 67 24% 172 4% EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, SB=southbound, NB=northbound. peak periods = AM (6:00-9:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00-7:00 p.m. . Source: Approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report, May 2014 (Ca!trans 2014a). Methodology The following operational factors were analyzed for Existing/Baseline Year 2013, Opening Year 2020, and Design Year 2040 conditions: • Freeway mainline analysis • Freeway ramp (merge/diverge) analysis • Freeway weaving analysis • HOV/tolled express lane analysis • Intersection LOS Level of Service Roadway capacity is generally determined by the number of vehicles that can reasonably pass over a given section of roadway in a given period of time. The Highway Capacity Manual, prepared by the National Transportation Research Board, identifies travel speed, freedom to Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-113 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities maneuver, and proximity to other vehicles as important factors in determining level of service (LOS) on a roadway. The ability of a highway to accommodate traffic is typically measured in terms of LOS. Traffic flow is classified by LOS, ranging from LOS A (free -flow traffic with low volumes and high speeds) to LOS F (traffic volume exceeds design capacity with forced flow and substantial delays) (see Figure 1-3 in Chapter 1). Daily traffic volumes are used to estimate the extent to which peak hour traffic volumes equal or exceed the maximum desirable capacity of a roadway. The Caltrans I-15 Route Concept Report identifies the LOS standard for the freeway as LOS D in urbanized areas, including I-15 from the San Bernardino County line south to Cajalco Road; therefore, any segment operating at LOS E or F is considered to be unsatisfactory. Mainline Level of Service Existing Year 2013 AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area freeway segments are summarized in Table 2-32. The results of the analysis show that all the freeway segments in the project study corridor are currently operating at satisfactory LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 2-32. Existing (2013) Freeway Mainline Level of Service Freeway Segment # of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS 1-15 Northbound Weirick Road off -ramp to Weirick Road on -ramp 3 65.0 18.7 C 65.0 17.9 B Weirick Road on -ramp to Cajalco Road off -ramp 3 64.7 24.1 C 65.0 21.5 C Cajalco Road off -ramp to Cajalco Road on -ramp 3 64.8 23.3 C 65.0 19.9 C Cajalco Road on -ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp 3 60.7 32.1 D 64.8 23.3 C El Cerrito Road off -ramp to El Cerrito Road on -ramp 3 62.7 28.7 D 65.0 21.9 C El Cerrito Road on -ramp to Ontario Avenue off -ramp 3 59.1 34.6 D 64.8 23.3 C Ontario Avenue off -ramp to lane addition 3 64.0 26.0 D 65.0 20.8 C Lane addition to Ontario Avenue on- ramp 4 65.0 19.2 C 65.0 15.6 B Ontario Avenue on -ramp to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp 4 64.9 22.8 C 65.0 19.1 C Magnolia Avenue off -ramp to Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp 3 64.6 24.3 C 64.9 22.8 C Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp to Magnolia Avenue on -ramp 3 62.5 29.2 D 62.2 29.7 D Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to 1-15 NB/SR-91 EB/WB connector See weaving analysis 1-15 NB/SR-91 EB/WB connector to SR-91 WB on -ramp 3 65.0 15.5 B 65.0 13.5 B SR-91 WB on -ramp to SR-91 EB on- ramp 3 65.0 21.7 C 65.0 19.8 C Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-114 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment # of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS SR-91 EB/I-15 SB connector to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp See weaving analysis Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp 4 65.0 20.0 C 65.0 18.9 C Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 2nd Street off -ramp See weaving analysis 2nd Street off -ramp to lane deletion 4 65.0 18.8 C 65.0 18.7 C Lane deletion to 2nd Street on -ramp 3 64.2 25.4 C 64.3 25.2 C 2nd Street on -ramp to 6th Street off- ramp 3 63.3 27.7 D 62.7 28.7 D 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on- ramp 3 64.4 24.8 C 64.5 24.5 C 6th Street on -ramp to Limonite Avenue off -ramp 3 62.0 29.9 D 62.4 29.3 D Limonite Avenue off -ramp to Limonite Avenue on -ramp 3 64.0 26.0 C 65.0 21.8 C Limonite Avenue on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp 3 59.7 33.7 D 64.2 25.4 C Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off- ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on -ramp 3 60.9 31.8 D 64.5 24.7 C Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on- ramp to SR-60 EB off -ramp See weaving analysis SR-60 EB off -ramp to SR-60 WB off- ramp 4 65.0 21.0 C 65.0 16.7 B SR-60 WB off -ramp to SR-60 WB on- ramp 3 65.0 20.6 C 65.0 16.7 B SR-60 WB On -ramp to SR-60 EB on- ramp 4 64.9 22.9 C 65.0 18.1 C 1-15 Southbound North of SR-60 off -ramp 4 63.5 27.2 D 62.7 28.8 D SR-60 off -ramp to SR-60 EB on -ramp 3 65.0 13.9 B 65.0 18.8 C SR-60 EB on -ramp to SR-60 WB on- ramp 3 65.0 20.3 C 63.9 26.2 D SR-60 WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp See weaving analysis Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off- ramp to lane deletion 4 65.0 16.9 B 65.0 20.8 C Lane deletion to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on -ramp 3 64.9 22.5 C 62.7 28.7 D Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on- ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on -ramp 4 65.0 17.0 B 65.0 21.3 C Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on- ramp to lane deletion 4 65.0 17.3 B 65.0 22.2 C Lane deletion to Limonite Avenue off- ramp 4 65.0 17.3 B 65.0 22.2 C Limonite Avenue off -ramp to Limonite Avenue on -ramp 3 65.0 20.1 C 64.0 26.0 C Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-115 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment # of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Limonite Avenue on -ramp to 6th Street off -ramp 3 64.3 25.1 C 60.6 32.3 D 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on- ramp 3 65.0 21.3 C 63.7 26.7 D 6th Street on -ramp to 2nd Street off- ramp 3 64.0 25.9 C 61.5 30.8 D 2nd Street off -ramp to lane addition 3 64.9 23.1 C 63.0 28.2 D Lane addition to 2nd Street on -ramp 4 65.0 17.3 B 65.0 20.5 C 2nd Street on -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp See weaving analysis Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp 4 65.0 15.9 B 65.0 20.7 C Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 1-15 SB/SR-91 WB connector See weaving analysis 1-15 SB/SR-91 WB connector to SR- 91 EB off -ramp 3 65.0 19.0 C 65.0 21.2 C SR-91 EB off -ramp to SR-91 EB on- ramp 3 65.0 13.3 B 65.0 15.4 B SR-91 EB on -ramp to SR-91 WB/1-15 SB connector 4 65.0 16.5 B 65.0 20.2 C SR-91 WB/1-15 SB connector to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp See weaving analysis Magnolia Avenue off -ramp to Magnolia Avenue on -ramp 4 65.0 15.4 B 65.0 20.4 C Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to Ontario Avenue off -ramp 4 65.0 17.2 B 64.8 23.3 C Ontario Avenue off -ramp to Ontario Avenue on -ramp 4 65.0 12.7 B 65.0 19.9 C Ontario Avenue on -ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp See weaving analysis El Cerrito Road off -ramp to El Cerrito Road on -ramp 3 65.0 17.7 B 62.2 29.7 D El Cerrito Road on -ramp to Cajalco Road off -ramp See weaving analysis Cajalco Road off -ramp to Cajalco Road on -ramp 3 65.0 17.1 B 63.2 27.8 D Cajalco Road on -ramp to Weirick Road off -ramp 3 65.0 18.1 C 61.4 31.0 D Weirick Road off -ramp to Weirick Road on -ramp 3 65.0 15.4 B 64.3 25.2 C EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, SB=southbound, NB=northbound. Source: Approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report, May 2014 (Caltrans 2014a). Ramp Level of Service Peak hour ramp operations are analyzed using the methodology contained in "Chapter 13 Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments" of the HCM 2010. This analysis examines the LOS within the ramp influence areas of I-15. Existing AM and PM peak hour LOS for the project study corridor freeway ramp segments are summarized in Table 3.3.1.2-1 in the Traffic Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-116 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Operations Analysis Report. The results of the analysis indicate that all freeway ramp junctions are currently operating at satisfactory LOS, with the following exceptions: • I-15 Northbound o Ontario Avenue off-ramp-LOS E in the AM peak hour • I-15 Southbound o SR-60 off-ramp-LOS F in the AM peak hour Intersection Level of Service Intersection LOS was calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies and the Synchro 7 (HCM 2000) software, which accounts for the effects of signal coordination and platoon formation on intersection operations. Synchro reports the LOS of intersections based on average delay per vehicle. The delay criteria for intersection LOS in terms of control delay per vehicle is shown in Table 2-33. Table 2-33. Level of Service Criteria for Intersection (Control Delay per Vehicle) LOS Signal Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Intersection A <=10 <=10 B >10and <=20 >10and <=15 C >20and <=35 >15and <=25 D > 35 and <= 55 > 25 and <= 35 E > 55 and <= 80 > 35 and <= 50 F > 80 > 50 The results of the intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 2-34. The table shows that all study area intersections are currently operating at satisfactory LOS, with exception of Valley View Avenue and 2nd Street, which is operating at LOS E in the AM Peak hour. Table 2-34. Existing (2013) Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Int. ID Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1 Hamner Avenue and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Signal 0.54 12.9 B 0.73 21.4 C 2 1-15 southbound ramps and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Signal 0.17 12.4 B 0.23 9.3 A 3 1-15 northbound ramps and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Signal 0.32 16.6 B 0.21 17.4 B 4 Wineville Road and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Signal 0.30 51.1 D 0.28 31.7 C 5 Hamner Avenue and Limonite Avenue Signal 0.51 26.2 C 0.63 28 C 6 Home Depot Center driveway and Limonite Avenue Signal 0.41 18.8 B 0.64 25.4 C 7 1-15 southbound ramps and Limonite Avenue Signal 0.60 16.6 B 0.66 17.2 B 8 1-15 northbound ramps and Limonite Avenue Signal 0.67 20.3 C 0.79 23.2 C Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-117 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Int. ID Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 9 Retail Center driveway and Limonite Avenue 2WSC N/A 10.7 B N/A 14.7 B 10 Pats Ranch Road and Limonite Avenue Signal 0.37 12.7 B 0.61 15.8 B 11 Wineville Road and Limonite Avenue Signal 0.56 23.2 C 0.65 24.9 C 12 Hamner Avenue and Schleisman Road 1 WSC 0.54 19.7 B 0.40 16.5 B 13 I-15 southbound ramps and Schleisman Road Future intersection 14 I-15 northbound ramps and Schleisman Road Future intersection 15 Future road (east of 1-15) and Schleisman Road Future intersection 16 Hamner Avenue and 6th Street/Norco Drive Signal 0.69 35.6 D 0.69 31.4 C 17 1-15 southbound ramps and 6th Street Signal 0.58 20.3 C 0.78 22.1 C 18 1-15 northbound ramps and 6th Street Signal 0.75 23.4 C 0.74 21.7 C 19 Sierra Avenue and 6th Street Signal 0.51 20.8 C 0.47 19 B 20 Hamner Avenue and 2nd Street Signal 0.73 32.8 C 0.79 35.9 D 21 1-15 southbound ramps and 2nd Street Signal 0.69 19.1 B 0.60 18.8 B 22 1-15 northbound ramps and 2nd Street Signal 0.87 29.6 C 0.81 31.7 C 23 Valley View Avenue and 2nd Street AWSC N/A 38.4 E N/A 16.9 C 24 Hamner Avenue and Hidden Valley Parkway Signal 0.68 54.2 D 0.74 51.5 D 25 1-15 southbound off -ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway Signal 0.49 16.0 B 0.93 27.3 C 26 1-15 southbound on -ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway Signal 0.39 5.6 A 0.74 4.7 A 27 1-15 northbound o- ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway Signal 0.64 3.9 A 0.71 6.5 A 28 1-15 northbound off -ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway Signal 0.74 31.0 C 0.58 23.3 C 29 Garland Way and Hidden Valley Parkway Signal 0.35 17.9 B 0.45 20.9 C 30 Rimpau Avenue and Magnolia Avenue Signal 0.82 41.8 D 0.74 39.8 D 31 El Sobrante Road and Magnolia Avenue Signal 0.56 26.4 C 0.57 30.6 C 32 1-15 southbound ramps and Magnolia Avenue Signal 0.83 30.1 C 0.88 38.9 D 33 1-15 northbound ramps and Magnolia Avenue Signal 0.86 16.0 B 0.58 8.4 A 34 El Camino Avenue and Magnolia Avenue Signal 0.56 38.3 D 0.56 32.1 C 35 Compton Avenue and Ontario Avenue Signal 0.54 5.9 A 0.61 8.4 A 36 1-15 southbound ramps and Ontario Avenue Signal 0.92 19.8 B 0.66 14.7 B 37 1-15 northbound ramps and Ontario Avenue Signal 0.83 31.0 C 0.67 18.1 B 38 State Street and Ontario Avenue 2WSC N/A 4.2 A N/A 1.8 A 39 Crossroads Street and Foothill Parkway Signal 0.81 38.4 D 0.69 16.9 B 40 Bedford Canyon Road and Foothill Parkway/EI Cerrito Road Signal 0.65 17.2 B 0.50 19.6 B 41 1-15 southbound ramps and El Cerrito Road Signal 0.61 18.3 B 0.41 13.6 B 42 1-15 northbound ramps and El Cerrito Road Signal 0.86 33.1 C 0.38 15.7 B 43 Katy Way and El Cerrito Road AWSC .69 18.8 C 0.27 8.8 A 44 Bedford Canyon Road and Cajalco Road Signal 0.35 13.1 B 0.44 14 B 45 1-15 southbound ramps and Cajalco Road Signal 0.54 14.1 B 0.78 21.9 C 46 1-15 northbound ramps and Cajalco Road Signal 0.87 31.8 C 0.59 12.8 B Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-118 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Int. ID Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 47 Grand Oaks Road and Cajalco Road Signal 0.42 6.7 A 0.37 12.2 B 48 Temescal Canyon Road and Cajalco Road Signal 0.65 51.2 D 0.46 34.2 C 49 Nob Hill Road/Knabe Road and Weirick Road Signal 0.46 16.9 B 0.41 23 C 50 1-15 southbound ramps and Weirick Road Signal 0.55 17.2 B 0.41 18.8 B 51 1-15 northbound ramps and Weirick Road Signal 0.46 14.5 B 0.30 14 B 52 Temescal Canyon Road and Weirick Road Signal 0.47 14.4 B 0.41 15 B EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, SB=southbound, NB=northbound. Bolded and shaded entries exceed acceptable LOS. Source: Approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report, May 2014 (Ca!trans 2014a). Regional Travel Statistics Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a key transportation indicator that represents the total miles traveled by vehicles across a particular study area or a region. Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) represents total hours traveled by vehicles considering system -wide traffic congestion in a given study area. Table 2-35 presents summaries of daily VMT, VHT, and average speed under existing conditions. Table 2-35. Existing Year 2013 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary* Freeway Arterials Total VMT 5,819,820 2,018,430 7,838,250 VHT 134,770 72,530 207,300 Average speed 43.2 27.8 37.8 The geographic area for the purposes of calculation of VMT/VHT includes all the freeway mainline/ramp segments within the traffic study area and the arterial streets/intersections analyzed as part of the TOAR. Refer to Section 2.1.7.2, Affected Environment. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities No bicycle or pedestrian facilities currently exist within the project limits However, there are two bicycle/pedestrian trails planned within 0.5 mile of the project limits (refer to Table 2-3). For a discussion of these recreational trails, please refer to Section 2.1.2, Parks and Recreational Facilities, and Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation. 2.1.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary Detours and Construction Staging The project would implement construction staging strategies in order to minimize traffic delays and congestion during the construction period. Many of the strategies will be specifically defined during the PS&E phase. However, some strategies that would be part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) (see measure C-1 in Section 2.1.4, Community Impacts) prepared for the project include the restriction of work and prohibition of closures during special event periods, such as the annual NASCAR races in Fontana. In addition, activities requiring temporary closures would Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-119 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities be limited to the late night early morning off-peak period, and any detour routes would be clearly established and marked for motorists. The development of lane closure charts will be a part of the TMP, and they will be developed in consultation with Caltrans District 8. In order to ensure that existing lanes of traffic are maintained through the construction of the project, a detailed construction staging plan will be created during the PS&E phase. The three main stages of the construction process are summarized below. During Stage 1, the travel lanes would generally be shifted to the right (outside) to maintain the existing lanes of traffic. This would allow the contractor to build the inside median where needed. Stage 1 would allow the median to be fully paved for the overall limits of the project. The portion of the median that was constructed with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would be maintained in its current configuration to maintain the SR-91 Project express lanes and the designated ingress/egress locations just south of Magnolia Avenue. While the traffic is shifted toward the right, the bridge widening for the new lanes in the median would be constructed. There are no anticipated long term closures or detours needed for this stage of the project. During this stage there would be no inside shoulder and the traffic would be separated from the construction zone by temporary concrete barriers to provide a defined working zone. Construction access openings would be provided periodically in the temporary barrier, as defined by the contractor, to facilitate construction vehicle access to/from the existing I-15 lanes. During Stage 2, the travel lanes would generally be shifted to the left (inside) to accommodate the construction on the outside portion of the existing roadway. These improvements include but are not limited to pavement widening noise barriers, supplemental drainage inlets, and treatment BMPs. Stage 3 would complete construction that was not able to be completed in the previous stages. Final bridge widening, walls, supplemental drainage structures, and other minor items such as BMPs would be constructed. Also, work required to finalize the ramp connections affected by outside widening, such the construction of the gore areas, would be completed. Final sign panels would be installed, and express lane testing could be performed. To complete the stage, the freeway would be restriped into its final configuration and the operations of all express lane features would commence. A TMP would be prepared and approved prior to the construction (see measure C-1 in Section 2.1.4, Community Impacts). Approval of the TMP will involve coordination with the adjacent projects within the area. The TMP would also include a public awareness program through the use of Highway Advisory Radio, local media, newsletters, and flyers. The school districts serving the study area —described further in Section 2.1.4.1, Community Character and Cohesion —offer transportation services and busing to students in their jurisdictions. The TMP will be distributed to the appropriate transportation director at each of the school districts to ensure any potentially affected school bus routes can be redirected during construction while still maintaining student access. Although construction activities could result in temporary, localized traffic disruption affecting the local community and regional commuters, construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is not expected to result in impacts that would be adverse under NEPA or significant under CEQA during construction. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-120 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities No bicycle or pedestrian facilities currently exist within the project limits. For a discussion of impacts to recreational trails, please refer to Section 2.1.2, Parks and Recreational Facilities, and Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation. Americans with Disabilities Act No sidewalks or pedestrian facilities would be constructed; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. During construction, pedestrian access along local roadway undercrossings of I-15 would be maintained by providing protective covered walkways to maintain at least one existing sidewalk open where it is currently provided for access beneath 1-15 during structure construction over local roadway crossings. No new sidewalks are planned. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) will be consistent with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the requirements contained in the Design Information Bulletin 82-02. Permanent Opening Year (2020) Intersection and Freeway Volumes The Forecast Year 2020 No -Build volumes (vehicles) at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.3.1-1 a and 4.3.1-1 b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. The forecast year 2020 No -Build volumes (PCE) at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Traffic Conditions Table 2-36 summarizes the VMT, VHT, and average speeds within the limits of the project study corridor under Year 2020 No -Build conditions. The VMT is forecast to increase by almost eight percent from existing conditions, and the VHT is forecast to increase by more than ten percent over existing conditions. The average speed is projected to decrease by 0.6 mph as compared to the Existing Year 2013 conditions. Table 2-36. Year 2020 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary —No -Build Alternative Freeway Arterials Total VMT 6,291,390 2,205,620 8,497,010 VHT 149,280 78,880 228,160 Average speed (mph) 42.1 28.0 37.2 Mainline Level of Service The 2020 No -Build AM and PM peak -hour LOS data for the study area freeway segments indicates that five freeway mainline segments out of 58 are projected to operate with an unsatisfactory LOS under the 2020 No -Build scenario. Ramp Level of Service The 2020 No -Build AM and PM peak -hour LOS data for the study area interchange ramp influence areas indicates that 10 freeway ramp segments out of 38 are projected to operate with an unsatisfactory LOS under the 2020 No -Build scenario. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-121 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Weaving Level of Service The 2020 No -Build AM and PM peak -hour LOS data for the study area weaving segments areas indicates that three freeway weaving segments out of 11 are projected to operate with an unsatisfactory LOS under the 2020 No -Build scenario. Intersection Level of Service An LOS analysis, using the previously described methodologies, was conducted to evaluate 2020 No -Build traffic conditions in the study area. The results of the intersection LOS analysis shows that two study area intersections out of 52 are projected to operate with an unsatisfactory LOS under the 2020 No -Build scenario. Opening -Year (2020) Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Intersection and Freeway Volumes The resulting volumes (vehicles) projected for the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours under opening -year 2020 Build conditions are illustrated in Figures 4.3.1-3a and 4.3.1-3b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. The volumes (PCE) at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.3.1-4a and 4.3.1-4b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Traffic Conditions Table 2-37 summarizes the predicted VMT, VHT, and average speeds within the limits of the project study corridor under both Build and No -Build conditions. VMT is forecast to increase by almost 11 percent from existing -year 2013 conditions, and VHT is forecast to increase by more than 10 percent over existing -year 2013 conditions. The average speed is projected to increase by 0.1 mph compared with existing -year 2013 conditions. Under opening -year 2020 Build conditions, the average speed on I-15 within the project limits (including express lanes) is projected to increase by 1.2 mph compared with opening -year 2020 No -Build conditions. Table 2-37. Opening -Year 2020 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary Comparison Freeway and Tolled Express Lanes Arterials Total No -Build Build No -Build Build No -Build Build VMT 6,291,390 6,473,800 2,205,620 2,209,840 8,497,010 8,683,640 VHT 149,280 149,540 78,880 78,920 228,160 228,460 Average speed 42.1 43.3 28.0 28.0 37.2 38.0 Mainline Level of Service Table 2-38 summarizes LOS results for freeway mainline segments under all scenarios. As shown in Table 2-38, all freeway segments in the project study corridor are projected to operate with a satisfactory LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours under the 2020 Build scenario. A total of 63 freeway mainline segments are included under the 2020 Build scenario. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-122 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Table 2-38. Freeway Mainline Peak -Hour Level of Service Freeway Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1-15 northbound Weirick Road off- ramp to CETAP off - ramp C B C C C C D D D D CETAP off -ramp to Weirick Road on - ramp - - - - - - D D D D Weirick Road on- ramp to Cajalco Road on -ramp C C D D D D D D D D Cajalco Road off- ramp to Cajalco Road loop on- ramp/CETAP on - ramp - - D C D D F E F E CETAP on -ramp to TEL ingress - - - - - - - - F F EB Cajalco Road loop on -ramp to WB Cajalco Rd on - ramp C C D D D D - - - - Cajalco Road on- ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp D C weave weave weave weave - - - - El Cerrito Road off- ramp/CETAP on- ramp/TEL ingress to El Cerrito Road on -ramp D C D C D C F E F F El Cerrito Road on- ramp to Ontario Avenue off -ramp D C D D D D F F F F Ontario Avenue off- ramp to lane addition D C D C D C F F F F Lane addition to Ontario Avenue on - ramp C B C C C C F E F E Ontario Avenue on- ramp to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp C C C C C C F E F E Magnolia Avenue off -ramp to Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp C C C D C C F F F F Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp to Magnolia Avenue on -ramp D D C C C C F F E E Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-123 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to 1-15 NB/SR-91 EB/WB connector weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave 1-15 NB/SR-91 EB/WB connector to SR-91 WB on - ramp B B B B B B C D C C SR-91 WB on -ramp to SR-91 EB on - ramp C C C C C C D D D D SR-91 EB/1-15 SB connector to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp C C C C C C C C C C Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 2nd Street off - ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave 2nd Street off -ramp to lane deletion C C C C B C C D C D Lane deletion to 2nd Street on -ramp C C C D C D E F D E 2nd Street on -ramp to 6th Street off - ramp D D D D C D E F D E 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on - ramp C C C D C C D F D E 6th Street on -ramp to Schleisman Road off -ramp - - D E C D E F D F Schleisman Road off -ramp to Schleisman Road on -ramp - - D D C D D E D D Schleisman Road on -ramp to Limonite Avenue off -ramp D D D E D D E F D E Limonite Avenue off -ramp to Limonite Avenue loop on -ramp C C D C C C D D C C Limonite Avenue loop on -ramp to Limonite Avenue on -ramp - - D D D C E E D D Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-124 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Limonite Avenue on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp D C E D D C E E E D Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off - ramp to tel egress D C E D D C E D D D Tel egress to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on -ramp - - - - C C - - C C Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on - ramp SR-60 EB off - ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave SR-60 EB off -ramp to SR-60 WB off - ramp C B C C C B C C C C SR-60 WB off -ramp to lane drop - - - - B B D D C D Lane drop to SR-60 WB on -ramp C B C C C C D D E E SR-60 WB on -ramp to SR-60 EB on - ramp C C C C C C E E E E 1-15 southbound North of SR-60 off- ramp D D D D D D F E F E SR-60 off -ramp to SR-EB 60 on -ramp B C C C C C C C D D SR-60 off -ramp to lane addition - - - - B B - - C C Lane addition to SR-EB 60 on -ramp C D C D C C D D D D Tel ingress to SR- 60 WB on -ramp - - - - C C - - D D SR-60 WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off - ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off - ramp to lane deletion B C C C B C C C B C Lane deletion to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on -ramp C D C D C C D D C D Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-125 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on -ramp B C C C B C C D C C Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd EB on - ramp to lane deletion B C C C C C C D C C Lane deletion to Limonite Avenue off -ramp B C D D C D E E D D Limonite Avenue off -ramp to Limonite Avenue loop on -ramp C C C D C C D D D C Limonite Avenue loop on -ramp to Limonite Avenue on -ramp - - D D C C E E D D Limonite Avenue on -ramp to Schleisman Road off -ramp - - D D D D F E E E Schleisman Road off -ramp to Schleisman Road on -ramp - - D D C C E E E D Schleisman Road on -ramp to 6th Street off -ramp C D D D D C F F F E 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on - ramp C D D D C C F F E D 6th Street on -ramp to Tel egress C D D D D C - - E E Tel egress to 2nd Street off -ramp - - - - D D F F F F 2nd Street off -ramp to lane addition C D D D D D F E F E Lane addition to 2nd Street on -ramp B C C C C C D D D D 2nd Street on -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp B C C C C C C C D D Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-126 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 1-15 SB/SR-91 WB connector weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave 1-15 SB/SR-91 WB connector to SR-91 EB off -ramp C C C C C B D D D D SR-91 EB off -ramp to SR-91 EB on - ramp B B B B B A C C C C SR-91 EB on -ramp to SR-91 WB/1-15 SB connector B C C C B B D E D D SR-91 WB/I-15 SB connector to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Magnolia Avenue off -ramp to Magnolia Avenue on -ramp B C B C B B D E D E Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to Ontario Avenue off -ramp B C C C C C E F E F Ontario Avenue off- ramp to Ontario Avenue on -ramp B C B C B C D E D E Ontario Avenue on- ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave El Cerrito Road off- ramp to lane addition B D C D C C F F F F LANE addition to Tel egress - - - - - - D F D E Tel egress to CETAP off -ramp - - - - - - - - D E El Cerrito Road on- ramp/CETAP off - ramp to lane drop weave weave weave weave weave weave E E C D Lane drop to Cajalco Road off - ramp - - - - - - - - D F Cajalco Road off- ramp to lane drop/CETAP on - ramp B D C D B C C D C D Lane drop/CETAP on -ramp to Cajalco Road on -ramp - - - - C D C D C D Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-127 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Freeway Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Cajalco Road on- ramp to Weirick Road off -ramp C D C E C D D E D E Weirick Road off- ramp to Weirick Road on -ramp B C C D C C C D C D Note: Bolded and shaded entries exceed the acceptable LOS. - = segment does not exist in this scenario. "weave" = segment is a weaving segment. Ramp Level of Service Table 2-39 summarizes LOS results of freeway ramp segments for all scenarios. Table 2-39 indicates that there are four freeway ramp segments out of 38 operating at unsatisfactory LOS under the year 2020 Build scenario. Table 2-39. Freeway Ramp Peak -Hour Level of Service Ramp Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1-15 northbound Weirick Road off- ramp C C D D D D E E E E Weirick Road on- ramp C C D C D D D D D D Cajalco Road off- ramp/CETAP off - ramp D C D D D D D D D D EB Cajalco Road loop on -ramp - - D C D C F D F E Cajalco Road on- ramp/ CETAP on -ramp D C weave weave weave weave F F F F El Cerrito Road off- ramp D D weave weave weave weave - - - - El Cerrito Road on- ramp D C D C D D F F F F Ontario Avenue off- ramp E D E D E D F F F F Ontario Avenue on- ramp C C D D D D F E F E Magnolia Avenue off -ramp B A B B B A F C F C Magnolia Avenue loop on -ramp lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add Magnolia Avenue on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-128 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Ramp Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SR-91 EB/WB off- ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave SR-91 WB on -ramp C C C C C C D D D D SR-91 EB on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave 2nd Street off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave 2nd Street on -ramp C D C D C D D F D D 6th Street off -ramp D D D E C D E F D E 6th Street on -ramp D D D D C D D F D F Schleisman Road off -ramp - - D E D D E F E F Schleisman Road on -ramp - - D D C D D F D E Limonite Avenue off- ramp D D E E D E E F E F Limonite Avenue loop on -ramp - - D C D C D D D D Limonite Avenue on- ramp D C D C D C E D D D Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off - ramp D D E D D D E E E D Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on - ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave SR-60 EB off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave SR-60 WB off -ramp lane del lane del lane del lane del lane del lane del lane del lane del lane del lane del SR-60 WB on -ramp D C D C D C F F F F SR-60 EB on -ramp D C D C D D F F F F 1-15 southbound SR-60 off -ramp F D F D F D F F F D SR-60 EB on -ramp C D C D C C D D D D SR-60 WB on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Canto Galleano Ranch Road off - ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Cantu Galleano Ranch Road WB on- ramp lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add lane add Cantu Galleano Ranch Road EB on - ramp B C C D C C C C C C Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-129 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Ramp Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Limonite Avenue off- ramp D D D E D D E E E E Limonite Avenue loop on -ramp - - C D C C D D D D Limonite Avenue on- ramp C D D D C C F E E D Schleisman Road off -ramp - - D E D D F E E E Schleisman Road on -ramp - - D D D C F F F D 6th Street off -ramp D D E D D D F F F E 6th Street on -ramp C D D D D C F F E D 2nd Street off -ramp D D D D E D F F F F 2nd Street on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave SR-91 WB off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave SR-91 EB off -ramp C D C C C C D D E D SR-91 EB on -ramp B B C D B C F F F F SR-91 WB on -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Magnolia Avenue off -ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave Magnolia Avenue on -ramp B C B C B C D F D F Ontario Avenue off- ramp C D D D D D E F E F Ontario Avenue on- ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave El Cerrito Road off- ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave weave CETAP off -ramp - - - - - - C F F F El Cerrito Road on- ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave - - - - Cajalco Road off- ramp weave weave weave weave weave weave E E C C WB CETAP on -ramp - - - - - - C C C C Cajalco Road on- ramp B D C D C D C D C E Weirick Road off- ramp C D D E D D D E D E Weirick Road on- ramp B C C D C C C D C D Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-130 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Ramp Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM Note: Bolded and shaded entries exceed the acceptable LOS. = segment does not exist in this scenario. "weave" = segment is a weaving segment. "lane add" = lane addition. "lane del" = lane deletion. PM AM PM AM PM Weaving Level of Service Table 2-40 summarizes LOS results of freeway weaving segments for all scenarios. Table 2-40 indicates that there are four freeway weaving segments out of 11 operating at unsatisfactory LOS under the year 2020 Build scenario. Under the year 2040 Build scenario, there are five freeway weaving segments operating at unsatisfactory LOS. Table 2-40. Freeway Weave Peak -Hour Level of Service Weaving Segment Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1-15 northbound Cajalco on -ramp to El Cerrito off -ramp - - C C D C - - - - Magnolia Avenue on -ramp to 1-15 NB/SR- 91 EB/WB connector F F F F F F F F F F SR-91 EB/1-15 SB connector to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp CCFC F CEDF E Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 2"d Street off -ramp C CCC C CCDC D Cantu Galleano Ranch Road on -ramp SR- 60 EB off -ramp C C D C D CDDD D 1-15 Southbound SR-60 WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp C CCD C CD D D D 2"d Street on -ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp B B C B C CDCD C Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to 1-15 SB/SR-91 WB connector C C C C C F D F E D SR-91 WB/I-15 SB connector to Magnolia Avenue off -ramp F F F F F F F F F F Ontario Avenue on -ramp to El Cerrito Road off -ramp B D B C B CEF E F El Cerrito Road on -ramp to Cajalco Road off -ramp B D B C B C - - - - Note: Bolded entries exceed the acceptable LOS. "2 = segment does not exist in this scenario. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-131 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Intersection Level of Service Table 2-41 summarizes LOS results of the study area intersections for all scenarios. Table 2-41 indicates that there are two intersection segments out of 52 operating at unsatisfactory LOS under the year 2020 Build scenario. Table 2-41. Intersection Peak -Hour Level of Service Int. ID Intersection Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Hamner Avenue and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road BCBC B CDF D F 2 1-15 SB ramps and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road B A B B A A B B B B 3 1-15 NB ramps and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road BBBB B BCCBC 4 Wineville Road and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road DCDC D CDDDD 5 Hamner Avenue and Limonite Avenue CCDC D C F F F F 6 Home Depot Center driveway and Limonite Avenue BCCC C CCDCD 7 1-15 SB ramps and Limonite Avenue BB AB A B B C B C 8 1-15 NB ramps and Limonite Avenue CCBB B BCDCD 9 Retail Center driveway and Limonite Avenue BBBC B CDF D F 10 Pats Ranch Road and Limonite Avenue BBBB B B B C B C 11 Wineville Road and Limonite Avenue CCCD C C F F F F 12 Hamner Avenue and Schleisman Road BBDF D F F F F F 13 1-15 SB ramps and Schleisman Road - B B B BCCCD 14 1-15 NB ramps and Schleisman Road - B B B B B F C F 15 Future road (east of 1-15) and Schleisman Road - A A A A F F F F 16 Hamner Avenue and 6th Street/Norco Drive DCDC D C F F F F 17 1-15 SB ramps and 6t" Street CCBC B CDCCC 18 1-15 NB ramps and 6t" Street CCBB B B D C D B 19 Sierra Avenue and 6h Street CBCB C CCCCC 20 Hamner Avenue and 2nd Street CDDD D D E E E D 21 1-15 SB ramps and 2nd Street BBCB C BCCDC 22 1-15 NB ramps and 2nd Street CCCD C DDEDD 23 Valley View Avenue and 2nd Street ECDC D C F D F D 24 Hamner Avenue and Hidden Valley Parkway DDED E D F F E F 25 1-15 SB off -ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway BCBC B CBDBD 26 1-15 SB on -ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway A A A A A A A B A B 27 1-15 NB on -ramp and Hidden Valley Parkway A A A A A A A C A B 28 1-15 NB off -ramp and Hidden Valley CCDC D CDCDD Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-132 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Int. ID Intersection Existing 2020 No -Build 2020 Build (Preferred Alternative) 2040 No -Build 2040 Build (Preferred Alternative) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Parkway 29 Garland Way and Hidden Valley Parkway B C B C B CCCCC 30 Rimpau Avenue and Magnolia Avenue DDDD D D F F F E 31 El Sobrante Road and Magnolia Avenue C C D C C C F E F E 32 1-15 SB ramps and Magnolia Avenue CDCD C B F E F E 33 1-15 NB ramps and Magnolia Avenue B A B A B A F D F C 34 El Camino Avenue and Magnolia Avenue D C D D D D F F F F 35 Compton Avenue and Ontario Avenue A A A A A A F B E B 36 1-15 SB ramps and Ontario Avenue BBCB C C F E F E 37 1-15 NB ramps and Ontario Avenue CBCB C C F F F F 38 State Street and Ontario Avenue A A A A A A F E F D 39 Crossroads Street and Foothill Parkway DBCC CCCEDF 40 Bedford Canyon Road and Foothill Parkway/EI Cerrito Road BBCD CCBCBC 41 1-15 SB ramps and El Cerrito Road BBBB B B E E E E 42 1-15 NB ramps and El Cerrito Road CBCB C B AA A A 43 Katy Way and El Cerrito Road C A D B D B F C F C 44 Bedford Canyon Road and Cajalco Road B B B C B CCF C E 45 1-15 SB ramps and Cajalco Road BCBB B B B B B B 46 1-15 NB ramps and Cajalco Road CB A A A A D B D B 47 Grand Oaks Road and Cajalco Road AB A B A B AB AB 48 Temescal Canyon Road and Cajalco Road DCCD C DDEDE 49 Nob Hill Road/Knabe Road and Weirick Road BCBC B CBCBC 50 1-15 SB ramps and Weirick Road BBBB B B D C C C 51 1-15 NB ramps and Weirick Road BBBB B BCBCB 52 Temescal Canyon Road and Weirick Road BBBB CBCF C F Note: Bolded and shaded entries exceed the acceptable LOS. ' = intersection does not exist in this scenario. Express Lane Segment Level of Service Predicted AM and PM peak -hour LOS data for the study area freeway express lane segments indicate that all express lane segments in the study area, by design, are projected to operate with a satisfactory LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) under opening -year 2020 conditions. Express Lane Ingress/Egress Level of Service Predicted AM and PM peak -hour LOS data for the study area express lane ingress/egress segments indicate that all freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate with a Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-133 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities satisfactory LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) under opening -year 2020 conditions. Horizon -Year (2040) No -Build Conditions Intersection and Traffic Volumes The forecast -year 2040 No -Build volumes (vehicles) at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.3.2-1 a and 4.3.2-1 b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. The forecast -year 2040 No -Build volumes (PCE) at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.3.2-2a and 4.3.2-2b in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Traffic Conditions Table 2-42 summarizes the VMT, VHT, and average speeds within the project limits under Year 2040 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. The VMT is forecast to increase by almost 65 percent from Existing Year 2013 conditions, and the VHT is forecast to increase by more than 103 percent over existing conditions. The average speed is also projected to decrease by 7.2 mph as compared to the Existing Year 2013 conditions. Table 2-42. Year 2040 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary —No -Build Alternative Freeway Arterials Total VMT 8,843,190 4,074,200 12,917,390 VHT 253,670 168,100 421,770 Average speed 34.9 24.2 30.6 Mainline Level of Service The AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area freeway segments are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-38. As Table 2-38 indicates, 34 freeway mainline segments out of 61 operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. Ramp Level of Service AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area interchange ramp influence areas are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-39. As Table 2-39 indicates, 31 freeway ramp segments out of 42 operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. Weaving Level of Service AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the study area weaving segments areas are summarized in the previously referenced Table 2-40. As Table 2-40 indicates, five freeway weaving segments out of nine operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. Intersection Level of Service A LOS analysis using the previously described methodologies was conducted to evaluate Year 2040 No -Build traffic conditions in the study area. The results of the intersection LOS analysis are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-41. As Table 2-41 indicates, 27 intersections Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-134 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities out of 52 operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. Design -Year (2040) Build Conditions Intersection and Freeway Volumes The predicted design -year 2040 traffic volumes (vehicles) at the project study corridor intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.3.2-3a and 4.3.2-3b in the approved Traffic Operations Analysis Report. The design -year 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) volumes (PCE) at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.3.1-4a and 4.3.1-4b in the approved Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Traffic Conditions Table 2-43 summarizes the predicted VMT, VHT, and average speeds within the project study limits under Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) and No -Build Alternative. VMT is forecast to increase by almost 69 percent from existing conditions, and VHT is forecast to increase by more than 100 percent over Existing Year 2013 conditions. The average speed is also projected to decrease by 5.8 mph as compared to the Existing Year 2013 conditions. The average speed on the I-15 within the project limits (including express lanes) is projected to increase by five percent as compared to Design Year 2040 conditions under the No -Build Alternative. Table 2-43. Design Year 2040 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Summary Comparison Freeway and Express Lanes Arterials Total No Build Build (Preferred Alternative) No Build Build (Preferred Alternative) No Build Build (Preferred Alternative) VMT 8,843,190 9,291,900 4,074,200 3,982,080 12,917,390 13,273,980 VHT 253,670 252,760 168,100 161,400 421,770 414,160 Average speed 34.9 36.8 24.2 24.7 30.6 32.1 Mainline Level of Service AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area freeway segments under Design Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-38. Detailed AM and PM peak LOS tables for 33 freeway mainline segments out of 68 operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Ramp Level of Service Predicted AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area interchange ramp influence areas are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-39. As Table 2-39 indicates, 30 freeway ramp Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-135 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities segments out of 42 operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Weaving Level of Service Predicted AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area weaving segments areas are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-40. As Table 2-40 indicates, five freeway weaving segments out of nine operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Intersection Level of Service A LOS analysis using the previously described methodologies was conducted to evaluate predicted traffic conditions under Design Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). The results of the intersection LOS analysis are summarized in previously referenced Table 2-41. As Table 2-41 indicates, 26 intersections out of 52 operate at unsatisfactory LOS under Year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Express Lane Segment Level of Service The predicted AM and PM peak -hour LOS data for the study area freeway express lane segments indicates that all express lane freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at satisfactory levels (volume -to -capacity ratio of less than one) during both the AM and PM peak hours under design -year 2040 conditions for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), with the following exceptions: • I-15 Northbound o Express lane ingress before El Cerrito Road to express lane ingress after Ontario Avenue on -ramp (AM peak hour) Express Lane Ingress/Egress Level of Service The predicted AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study area express lane ingress/egress segments are summarized in Table 2-44. As Table 2-44 indicates, all the ingress/egress segments in the study area are projected to operate at satisfactory LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-136 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Table 2-44. Year 2040 Express Lane Ingress/Egress Peak Hour Level of Service —Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Express Lane Ingress/Egress Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density LOS Density LOS 1-15 Southbound Ingress before Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road off -ramp 22.3 C 23.7 C Egress between 6th Street On -Ramp and 2nd Street off- ramp 17.0 B 14.4 B Ingress at Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp 29.4 D 20.4 C Egress between Magnolia Avenue on -ramp and Ontario Avenue off -ramp 8.8 A 12.1 B 1-15 Northbound Ingress between Ontario Avenue on -ramp and Magnolia Avenue off -ramp 14.5 B 10.7 B Egress between Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp and 2nd Street on -ramp 20.8 C 29.8 D Between Hidden Valley Parkway Egress and 2nd Street ingress (weaving segment) 17.4 B 20.4 C Ingress between Hidden Valley Parkway off -ramp and 2nd Street on -ramp 13.5 B 18.7 B Egress at Canto-Galleano Ranch Loop on -ramp 14.8 B 18.3 B Comparison of Performance Measures and Traffic Conditions for 2013, 2020, and 2040 The following is a summary of traffic conditions for the existing year (2013) and the No -Build and Build conditions for opening -year 2020 and forecast -year 2040. Existing -Year (2013) Traffic Conditions Under existing conditions, all basic freeway segments operate with a satisfactory LOS. During the AM peak hour, two ramp junctions, two weaving segments, and one intersection operate with an unsatisfactory LOS. During the PM peak hour, two weaving segments and one intersection operate with an unsatisfactory LOS. Based on the results of the traffic study, traffic operations in the study area are satisfactory for most of the freeway segments and study area intersections. Opening -Year (2020) No -Build Traffic Conditions Under 2020 No -Build conditions, total VMT is projected to increase by more than eight percent, and total VHT is projected to increase by 10 percent compared with existing (2013) conditions. During the PM peak hour, the number of mainline segments that are projected to operate with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from zero under existing conditions to four under 2020 No -Build conditions. The number of freeway weaving segments operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from two to three during the AM peak hour. Figures 6.2.1-1 and 6.2.1-2, in the approved Traffic Operations Analysis Report, provide freeway LOS comparisons under opening -year 2020 conditions during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour, respectively. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-137 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from two under existing -year 2013 conditions to five under opening -year 2020 No -Build conditions during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from zero to six. Based on the intersection LOS analysis, the number of intersections operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to stay the same as the number under existing -year 2013 conditions in both the AM and PM peak hours. Opening -Year (2020) Build Traffic Conditions Under 2020 Build conditions, total VMT is projected to increase by more than 11 percent, and total VHT is projected to increase by 10 percent compared with existing conditions. All basic freeway mainline segments are projected to operate with a satisfactory LOS under 2020 Build conditions. The number of freeway weave segments operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from two to three during both the AM and PM peak hours. Weaving segments are part of freeway mainline segments. If we compare all freeway mainline segments, only three segments remain deficient under the Build conditions as compared to five segments under the No -Build conditions. Overall, the project is projected to improve operations within the study area. The number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to decrease from five under 2020 No -Build conditions to three under 2020 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) conditions during the AM peak hour. During PM peak hour, the number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to decrease from six ramp junctions under 2020 No -Build conditions to one under 2020 Build conditions. Based on the intersection LOS analysis, the number of intersections operating with an unsatisfactory LOS in 2020 under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is projected to stay the same as the number under existing -year 2013 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the queuing analysis, none of the queues at the northbound and southbound ramps are projected to back up to the I-15 freeway mainline. Under 2020 Build conditions, all express lane segments are projected to operate with a satisfactory LOS, and all express lane segments have volume -to -capacity ratios of less than 1. Forecast -Year (2040) No -Build Traffic Conditions Under 2040 No -Build conditions, total VMT is projected to increase by more than 65 percent, and total VHT is projected to increase by 103 percent compared with existing -year 2013 conditions. The number of mainline segments operating with an unsatisfactory LOS during the AM peak hour is projected to increase from zero under 2020 No -Build conditions to 28 under 2040 No -Build conditions. The number of mainline segments operating with an unsatisfactory LOS during the PM peak hour is projected to increase from three under 2020 No -Build conditions to 34 under 2040 No -Build conditions. The deficient mainline segments are spread throughout the project study corridor; almost all segments are operating at LOS F because of severe capacity constraints on the I-15 freeway mainline. Figures 6.3.1-1 and 6.2.1-2 (refer to the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-138 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities approved Traffic Operations Analysis Report) provide freeway LOS comparisons under 2040 conditions during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour. The number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS during the AM peak hour is projected to increase from three under 2020 No -Build conditions to 25 under 2040 No -Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, the number of ramp segments operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from six under 2020 No -Build conditions to 28 under 2040 No -Build conditions. Based on the intersection LOS analysis, the number of intersections operating with an unsatisfactory LOS during the AM peak hour is projected to increase from one under 2020 No - Build conditions to 18 under 2040 No -Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, the number of intersections operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to increase from one under 2020 No -Build conditions to 22 under 2040 No -Build conditions. Forecast -Year (2040) Build Traffic Conditions Under 2040 Build conditions, total VMT is projected to increase by more than 69 percent, and total VHT is projected to increase by 100 percent compared with existing -year 2013 conditions. The average speed is projected to increase by five percent compared with 2040 No -Build conditions. The number of mainline segments operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to decrease from 28 under 2040 No -Build conditions to 23 under 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) conditions during the AM peak hour and decrease from 34 to 30 during the PM peak hour. The deficient mainline segments are spread throughout the project study corridor; almost all deficient segments are operating at LOS F because of severe capacity constraints on the I-15 freeway mainline The number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to decrease from 28 under 2040 No -Build conditions to 23 under 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) conditions during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the number of ramp junctions operating with an unsatisfactory LOS is projected to be the same under 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) conditions and 2040 No -Build conditions. Under 2040 Build conditions, all express lane segments are projected to operate with a satisfactory LOS, except the northbound segment between El Cerrito Road and the Ontario Avenue on -ramp. All other express lane segments have a volume -to -capacity ratio of less than 1. Under Build conditions, all TEL segments would be priced to operate at satisfactory levels of service. Table 2-45 provides a summary of the number of deficient segments and intersections across each scenario for the Build and No -Build Alternatives. Any segment projected to operate at unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F) is considered a deficient segment. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-139 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Table 2-45. Number of Deficient' Segments across All Scenarios Scenarios AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour f0 3 a) c u� _c . s2 y >, c 03 o 30-; d E c �o:2, >, a) � c 3> a), � LL� en c ° E'a) a)d en Ir.) c � f0 3 a> a> o u_� N .( rm en >, c as o 3�P o Ec ii12 2, >, cmL ca c 3> 00 a) LL en c o y w c Existing -year 2013 conditions 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 No -Build Alternative-2020 2 6 3 1 3 6 2 1 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) —2020 0 3 3 1 0 1 3 1 No -Build Alternative-2040 28 25 4 19 34 28 4 23 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) —2040 23 25 5 19 30 23 4 23 'Any segment projected to operate at unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F) is considered a deficient segment. Comparison of Travel Time A VISSIM model was run to estimate travel times for the project study corridor. VISSIM is a microscopic multi -modal traffic flow simulation software. In a microsimulation each vehicle is simulated individually. Travel time summary of the various scenarios is provided in Table 2-46. The first column shows the travel times on the general purpose lanes across various scenarios and peak hours, and the second column shows the travel time on the express lanes. This illustrates the time savings available to all travelers should they decide to use the express lanes and is the reason some drivers would choose to pay a toll. It should be noted that, in addition to offering a choice to save time with the addition of the express lane, the Build scenarios are predicted to carry more traffic than the No -Build scenario by six percent during the Year 2020 and by 15 percent during the Year 2040. Table 2-46. Travel Time Summary Alternative Direction Average Travel Time, Minutes General Purpose Express Lanes 2020 AM No Build SB 19.4 NB 18.2 2020 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress SB 16.4 10.9 NB 16.2 10.9 2020 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress SB 16.4 10.9 NB 16.1 10.9 2020 PM No Build SB 16.8 ' NB 20.1 2020 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress SB 16.3 10.9 NB 17.5 10.9 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-140 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Alternative Direction Average Travel Time, Minutes General Purpose Express Lanes 2020 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress SB 16.2 10.9 NB 17.8 10.8 2040 AM No Build SB 29.0 NB 25.2 2040 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress SB 34.0 15.0 NB 27.5 14.7 2040 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress SB 33.8 14.9 NB 29.9 14.6 2040 PM No Build SB 34.8 NB 54.0 2040 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress SB 38.3 14.9 NB 34.5 14.7 2040 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress SB 35.1 14.9 NB 36.1 14.7 NB = northbound. SB = southbound. As can be seen in Table 2-46, in the Opening Year 2020 scenario, the travel times under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) (with and without optional ingress/egress) are predicted to be faster than those for the No -Build scenario. In addition, the travel times for the express lanes are predicted to be more than 30 percent faster than the No -Build scenario. Under the 2040 scenario, because congestion would be much greater than it would be for 2020, travel times are predicted to be much longer across all scenarios, during all peak hours, and in all directions. The benefits of the express lanes are much more noticeable because the time savings would be more than 50 percent under all 2040 build scenarios. Looking at the travel times just for general-purpose lanes, the greatest benefit can be seen in the 2040 PM northbound direction where travel times are projected to be reduced by 40 percent under the Build scenarios. However, for all other 2040 scenarios (AM southbound, AM northbound, PM southbound), because the overall throughput volume would be higher under the build scenarios, the travel times are slightly higher in the general-purpose lanes under the build scenarios compared with the No -Build scenario. Even though there are specific instances where travel times in the general-purpose lanes are greater with the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), the average speed for all users does increase from 34.9 mph under the No -Build Alternative to 36.8 mph under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). This improvement is realized while still accommodating a higher volume of traffic. In addition to travel time summary for the entire corridor, travel time information for two key origin -destination pairs within the corridor (Cajalco Road to SR-91 and SR-60 to SR-91) is also provided in Tables 2-47 and 2-48. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-141 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Table 2-47. Travel Time Summary, Year 2020 Alternative Average Travel Time, Minutes Southbound SR-60-SR-91 Southbound SR-91 to Cajalco Road Northbound Cajalco Road to SR-91 Northbound SR-91 to SR-60 2020 AM No Build GP 14.24 5.20 7.11 11.09 Express lane Combined 2020 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress GP 11.15 5.24 6.95 9.22 Express lane 7.61 3.33 3.88 7.00 Combined 11.00 5.19 6.82 9.14 2020 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress GP 11.22 5.21 6.87 9.23 Express lane 7.63 3.29 3.88 6.98 Combined 11.07 5.16 6.77 9.15 2020 PM No Build GP 11.26 5.56 7.41 12.67 Express lane Combined 2020 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress GP 11.12 5.20 8.22 9.26 Express lane 7.65 3.27 3.85 7.03 Combined 11.00 5.14 8.07 9.18 2020 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress GP 11.09 5.14 8.39 9.39 Express lane 7.60 3.28 3.71 7.13 Combined 10.98 5.11 8.20 9.30 Table 2-48. Travel Time Summary Year 2040 Alternative Average Travel Time, Minutes Southbound SR-60-SR-91 Southbound SR-91 to Cajalco Road Northbound Cajalco Road to SR-91 Northbound SR-91 to SR-60 2040 AM No Build GP 17.14 11.85 15.66 9.50 Express lane Combined 2040 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress GP 18.48 15.53 15.98 11.52 Express lane 10.02 4.95 6.04 8.66 Combined 15.59 14.43 13.82 10.61 2040 AM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress GP 18.38 15.39 16.08 13.79 Express lane 9.84 5.05 6.06 8.53 Combined 15.68 14.21 13.91 12.34 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-142 Section 2.1. Human Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Alternative Egress Average Travel Time, Minutes Southbound SR-60—SR-91 Southbound SR-91 to Cajalco Road Northbound Cajalco Road to SR-91 Northbound SR-91 to SR-60 2040 PM No Build GP 16.04 18.74 29.49 24.50 Express lane Combined 2040 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) with Optional Ingress Egress GP 14.07 24.21 25.41 9.13 Express lane 9.93 5.00 6.06 8.66 Combined 13.02 20.68 22.81 8.97 2040 PM Build (Preferred Alternative) without Optional Ingress Egress GP 13.17 21.90 26.72 9.38 Express lane 9.77 5.09 6.17 8.58 Combined 12.31 19.15 23.87 9.14 As can be seen in Tables 2-47 and 2-48, in the Opening Year 2020 scenario, the travel times under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) (with and without optional ingress/egress) are predicted to be faster than those for the No -Build scenario for both origin -destination pairs. In addition, the travel times for the express lanes are predicted to be more than 30 to 40 percent faster than the No -Build scenario. The greatest benefit can be seen in the northbound direction from Cajalco Road to SR-91 where the travel time on the express lanes is less than half of that for the general purpose lanes. Under the 2040 scenario, travel times are predicted to be much longer across all scenarios for both origin -destination pairs. The benefits of the express lanes are much more noticeable because the time savings would be more than 50 to 70 percent under all 2040 Build scenarios when compared with the No -Build scenario. The greatest benefit would occur for users of the segment from Cajalco Road to SR-91. Looking at the travel times just for general-purpose lanes, the greatest benefit can be seen in the 2040 PM northbound direction from Cajalco Road to SR-91, where travel times are projected to be reduced by 20 percent under the Build scenarios. 2.1.7.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES Refer to measure PRF-1, identified previously in Section 2.1.2, Parks and Recreational Facilities. Implementation of measure PRF-1 would help to minimize temporary construction impacts associated with trail closures at River Trails Park. Refer to measure C-1, identified previously in Section 2.1.4, Community Impacts. Implementation of measure C-1 would help avoid or minimize potential short-term impacts on residences, businesses, and emergency service providers during the construction period. No additional measures are required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-143 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics 2.1.8 Visual/Aesthetics 2.1.8.1 REGULATORY SETTING The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA) establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331 [b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]) directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state "with...enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities" (CA Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001 [b]). 2.1.8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section is based on the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Visual Impact Assessment, May 2015 (VIA) (Caltrans 2015d). Visual Setting The project's visual setting includes general land uses in the area that have transitioned over the past 15 years, changing from open space and agriculture to residential, commercial, and industrial. Cities along the I-15 corridor within the project limits include Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley. A portion of Corona is located within the Temescal Valley, and it is highly developed with residential, commercial, and industrial development. Aggregate mining operations are located in the Gavilan Hills within the eastern portion of Corona. The City of Norco has a large equestrian community and has promoted itself as "Horsetown U.S.A." since 2006. The Norco area consists of larger residential lots with ranch -style homes with several trails and parks that incorporate equestrian -type facilities and recreational opportunities. The cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley are relatively new incorporated cities that are in transitional phases of moving from agricultural and rural land uses to residential and commercial development. The overall character of the region is a mix of urban, with small pockets of rural and agricultural landscapes; however, the dominating landscape throughout the project corridor is urban. The views within the project corridor are limited to hillsides and mountain ridges as background views and some riparian areas associated with the drainages. Visual resources within the corridor include the Temescal Valley, Santa Ana Mountains to the east, San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, and the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast (see Figure 2-13). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-144 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project LOS ANGELES COUNTY 0 Chino Chino BERNARDINO COUNTY 01)—ts Ontario Eastvale VAU-3,_ Hills \ynta Ana River ra Yorba Linda N 1 w � s = 5 miles Corona VAU-2 Corona/Norco VAU-I Weirick Canyon CMagfA(3) COUNTY Northern . Terminus 66 Fontana --„Sunnyslope Cantu Galleano Ranch Jusupa Valley Limonite Avenue 6th Street Norco 2nd Street CO 6th Street Magnolia Avenue Rubidoux R VERSIDE C-OU NTY Riverside Ontario Avenue El Cerrito Road 1 p } Weirick Road Southern `Terminus EERIN000dccre_s aialco Road r ti SAN BERNA DINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OProject Terminus Visual Assessment Unit [-15 Eligible Scenic Highway 0 0 0 0 Temescal Valley Bedford Wash Santa Ana Mountains Santa Ana River San Gabriel Mountains San Bernardino Mountains Figure 2-13 Identified Visual Resources and Eligible Scenic Highway Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-146 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics Riparian areas include Bedford Wash in the southern portion of the project corridor and the Santa Ana River in the northern portion of the project corridor. The Gavilan Hills are located to the east of I-15 from approximately PM 34.7 to the SR-91 interchange at PM 41.5 and are considered a mineral resource area for aggregate rock due to the geologic content of the area. The area contains rock outcroppings that are visible in the middleground views and are normally considered a visual resource; however, due to extensive mining activities, the hillsides contain visible scars across much of the landscape that diminishes the quality of the view. Cut slope areas are occasionally visible adjacent to the roadway, resulting from the original construction of I-15. Some rock outcroppings have been identified in these cut slope areas from previous construction of the highway. No historic resources were identified within the I-15 corridor. Existing Visual Character and Quality The visual character of the region is a mix of urban land use types, with small pockets of rural and agricultural landscapes; the dominant landscape is identified as urban. The varying topography in the area limits the visibility of I-15 in many areas along the project corridor. The small segment of the Santa Ana River traversing the project corridor exhibits distinctive, contrasting, and diverse visual elements that give it a high visual quality. The riparian areas of the Santa Ana River and the Bedford Wash have high vividness and unity; however, they do not have intactness and are not free from visual intrusions due to man-made development. Temescal Valley exhibits unity in visual pattern with I-15; however, the extensive mining activities in the Gavilan Hills reduce the vividness and unity of the area. The mountain background views are considered memorable with a high vividness and unity; however, these views are not always visible. Riverside and San Bernardino counties currently experience poor air quality during high temperature events, which creates an inversion layer that results in low intactness of mountain views and acts like a visual intrusion. The I-15 corridor has unity, but has low vividness and intactness. The overall visual quality of the existing corridor is considered low. 2.1.8.3 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY A VIA was conducted (May 2015) to assess the adverse visual effects of the project on the surrounding visual environment. The VIA followed FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA 1981). This methodology includes establishing the visual environment of the project, assessing the visual resources within or adjacent to the project area, and identifying viewer response to those resources. These components define the existing or baseline conditions. The resource changes that would be introduced by the project and the associated viewer response are used to evaluate the degree of visual impact. The following steps were followed to assess the potential visual impacts of the project: • Define the project location and setting, including scenic resources in the area. • Identify visual assessment units (VAUs) and key view locations. Three project VAUs were identified by their geographic location or distinct viewshed. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-147 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics • Analyze the existing visual resources (visual character [form, dominance, scale, and continuity] and quality [vividness, intactness, and unity]), resource change, and viewer response (exposure and sensitivity). • Depict the visual appearance and visual changes of project alternatives, using visual simulations to depict changes to the visual environment. • Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives based on the resource change and the viewer response. • Propose measures to offset visual impacts. The project's potential to result in adverse visual impacts is determined by identifying existing visual resources and project -related changes to them, then predicting the viewer response to those changes. The visual resource change is the sum of the change in visual character and quality. Viewer response to a project is the sum of the viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. The combination of the viewer response and the visual resource change determines the project visual impacts. Impacts were characterized based upon the following FHWA categories for their level of change: • Low — Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource with low viewer response. • Moderately Low — Low adverse change to the visual resource with a moderate viewer response, or moderate negative change to the resource with a low viewer response. • Moderate — Moderate adverse change to the visual resource with moderate viewer response. • Moderately High — Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer response or high visual resource change with moderate viewer response. • High — A high level of adverse change to the resource or a high level of viewer response to visual change such that architectural design and landscape treatment cannot mitigate the impacts. Viewer response level is high. Visual Assessment Units Three VAUs were identified within the project corridor to characterize the visual landscape and visual resources. These VAUs are described below and identified in Figure 2-14. VAU-1 Weirick Canyon VAU-1, Weirick Canyon, begins in the area of Bedford Wash (PM 36.8) and continues to just south of Magnolia Avenue (PM 39.5). This VAU was selected based on the consistency of the overall surrounding land uses and general topography of the area. This VAU consists primarily of low density residential development (situated at a higher elevation than I-15), a commercial shopping center (the Shops at Dos Logos) and El Cerrito Park (both situated lower than 1-15), and industrial uses. The Gavilan Hills are located to the east and contain four quarries currently mined for aggregate resources (i.e., sand, rock, and gravel) that are visible from the northern terminus of VAU-1. This area contains cut slope rock outcroppings; however, these are not considered natural "rock outcroppings." The middleground views of the Gavilan Hills visible from the highway contain rock outcroppings that are being mined, which reduces their aesthetic value. No rock outcroppings would be removed as part of the project. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-148 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Enos Ontario BERNARDINO coUNTY t=astvaie Santa Ana River! Corona VAU-2 Corona/Norco CGIAMIA EOUNTY 1 in = 3 miles Northern Terminus Fontana Cantu Galleano Ranch Road lurupa Valley Mira Loma Limonite Avenue [0 Norco 0 nd Street Pedley Riverside Hidden Valley Parkway ,ph 75 VAU-1 Weirick Canyon Nome 6th street Gardens Magnolia Avenue Ontario Avenue El Cerrito 00 El Cerrito Road 0 Weirick Road • Cajalco Road Southern Terminus Bloomington Sunnyslope Rubidoux RI ERS DE coUNTY • 0 • 0 0 Project Terminus Visual Assessment Unit Key View Point Photo Key View Point Simulation Photo Changahle Message Sign Weirick Road Simulation Bridge Underpass El Cerrito Road Photo Toll Responder El Cerrito Road Simulation Golf Course View Cresta Verde Golf Course Simulation Egress Facility Hidden Valley Parkway Simulation Noise Barrier 2nd Street Simulation Residential View Sierra Avenue Photo Santa Ana River Santa Ana River Figure 2-14 Visual Assessment Units and Key View Locations Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-150 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics I-15 is situated at -grade at the southern terminus of VAU-1 and intersects Bedford Wash south of Cajalco Road. I-15 is elevated in the northern portion of the VAU. VAU-2 Corona/Norco VAU-2, Corona/Norco, begins just south of Magnolia Avenue (PM 39.5) and continues north to Hidden Valley Parkway in the Norco area (PM 43.5). This VAU was selected based on the urban nature of the area and is characterized by a four- to six -lane segment of I-15, with a dense mix of development along both sides. I-15 is elevated at the SR-91 interchange, and the topography slopes from the east to the west, which allows for higher visibility of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. The primary views within VAU-2 include commercial, residential, and industrial uses, Cresta Verde golf course, the SR-91 interchange, hillsides, and distant mountains. VAU-3 - Santa Ana River VAU-3, Santa Ana River, stretches from north of Second Street (PM 43.5) to the northern terminus of the project corridor, just north of SR-60 (PM 52.0). This VAU was selected based on the recreational and agricultural land uses characteristic of this area. VAU-3 is relatively flat and contains a six -lane segment of I-15 with a landscaped median and urban development along both sides. The views within this VAU are of agricultural uses, residential uses, distant mountains, and trees/riparian vegetation on either side of I-15 where I-15 crosses the Santa Ana River. Viewshed A viewshed is a subset of a VAU and consists of all the surface areas visible from the observer's viewpoint. The viewshed also includes the locations of viewers likely to be affected by visual changes caused by project features. The viewshed for the project is defined below. • Foreground (0 to 0.25-0.5 mile): These views are located at close range and tend to dominate the view. These characteristics can be distinguished with clarity and simplicity. • Middleground (0.25-0.5 to 3-5 miles): Features located within middleground views are distinguishable, yet not as sharp as those characteristics located within foreground views. • Background (3-5 miles to infinite): Features located within background views have few details and distinctions in landform and surface features. The emphasis of background views is an outline or edge. Objects in the background eventually fade to obscurity with increasing distance. Key View Points Key views for the project were selected in consultation with Caltrans. The key views represent the area's visual resources and the perspectives of sensitive view groups, including residents, motorists, and visitors who may be affected by the project. A total of eight key views were selected as shown on Figure 2-14. Five visual simulations were prepared (identified in blue in Figure 2-14) to illustrate the anticipated visual changes that would result from the project. Three photo examples were developed to present examples of a changeable message sign, a toll responder, and the Santa Ana River bridge expansion. Figures 2-15 through 2-22 present the existing condition photographs. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-151 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics • Key View 1—WeirickRoad: Located within VAU-1, Key View 1 is located at the Weirick Road northbound on -ramp in Corona. This key view is directed toward the northwest. This key view was selected as a representative location of a changeable message sign from the highway traveler viewer perspective. • Key View 2-El Cerrito Road Underpass: Located within VAU-1, Key View 2 is located on the eastbound side of El Cerrito Road in Corona. This key view is directed toward the west. This key view was selected as a representative view of an I-15 overcrossing from a local traveler and recreational viewer perspective. • Key View 3-El Cerrito Road: Located within VAU-1, Key View 3 is located on the westbound side of El Cerrito Road in Corona. This key view is directed toward the southeast. From this location, the topography slopes from west to east. This key view was chosen as a representative view of a photo toll responder from a highway traveler and other local traveler viewer perspective. • Key View 4—Cresta Verde Golf Course: Located within VAU-2, Key View 4 is located northeast of the I-15/SR-91 interchange, along Cresta Road in Corona. Key View 4 is directed toward the northwest. From this location, the freeway -to -freeway interchange structures are elevated above I-15, which is at a lower elevation than the golf course and other surrounding land uses. This location was selected as a representative view of project components from the perspective of a recreational user. • Key View 5-Hidden Valley Parkway: Located within VAU-2, Key View 5 is located on the northwest side of Hidden Valley Parkway in Norco. This key view is directed toward the north. From this location, I-15 is at a slightly lower elevation than the surrounding area. Key View 5 was selected as a representative view of the proposed ingress/egress locations from the perspectives of a highway traveler and a commercial user. • Key View 6—Second Street: Located within VAU-3, Key View 6 is adjacent to the Second Street northbound on -ramp in Norco. This key view is directed toward the north. From this location, I-15 is located about 20 feet higher than the surrounding area. Key View 6 was selected as a representative view of a noise barrier from a highway traveler perspective. • Key View 7—Sierra Avenue: Located within VAU-3, Key View 7 is located on Sierra Avenue in Norco. This key view is directed toward the northwest. From this location, I-15 is approximately 35 to 40 feet lower than the adjacent residences. Key View 7 was selected as a representative view of a noise barrier from the perspective of a residential viewer. • Key View 8—Santa Ana River: Located within VAU-3, Key View 8 is located east of I-15 at the Santa Ana River bridge in Norco. This key view is located within a linear recreational area (Santa Ana River Trail Park) and is directed toward the west. From this location, the 1-15 bridge is elevated. Key View 8 was selected as a representative view of the bridge improvements from the perspective of the recreational, residential, and other traveler viewers. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-152 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 1—Existing Condition Key View 1—Example of the Proposed Condition rMINIMUM TOLL p,JO 7.7 9 "6 11M11011M1 Figure 2-15 Key View 1—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-154 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 2—Existing Condition Key View 2 —Visual Simulation of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-16 Key View 2—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-156 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 3— Existing Condition Key View-3 Example of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-17 Key View 3—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-158 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 4—Existing Condition Key View 4—Visual Simulation of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-18 Key View 4—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-160 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 5—Existing Condition Key View 5—Visual Simulation of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-19 Key View 5— Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-162 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 6—Existing Condition �# a+r .•re_ Amer Key View 6—Visual Simulation of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-20 Key View 6—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-164 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 7—Existing Condition Key View 7—Visual Simulation of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-21 Key View 7—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-166 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Key View 8—Existing Condition Key View 8—Example of the Proposed Condition Figure 2-22 Key View 8—Existing and Proposed Condition Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-168 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics Viewer Response The combination of the viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity determines the overall viewer response to a view. There are two primary types of viewer groups for highway projects: 1) highway neighbors and 2) highway users. Each viewer group has its own particular level of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity, resulting in distinct and predictable visual concerns for each group, which help to predict their responses to visual changes. Highway neighbors include residential, recreational, and commercial and industrial uses. Highway users include highway travelers and other local travelers (roadway bicyclists or pedestrians). These viewers have the following sensitivity. • Residential uses residing adjacent to the highway. Residents are the most sensitive viewer group because they are potentially exposed to the view 24 hours a day, and viewer exposure is of an extended duration due to their stationary nature. Considering the limited views of the majority of the residential users, the overall residential viewer exposure is considered moderately low. The overall viewer response is considered to be moderately high. • Recreational viewers engaged in walking, running, bicycling, and horseback riding along the Santa Ana River and Santa Ana River Trail. Recreational viewers have an extended exposure and would be most sensitive to changes due to the nature of their viewing experience, which is focused on their visual surroundings. These viewers are considered to have a high sensitivity. The overall viewer response is considered to be moderately high. • Commercial and industrial users working at establishments adjacent to the highway. Generally, retail and industrial employees are working indoors, and the workers' and patrons' focus is inward -facing; therefore, the overall viewer exposure is considered low. Because these viewers are not engaged in their surrounding outdoor visual environment, these viewers would likely have a low awareness and low sensitivity. The overall viewer response is considered to be low. • Highway travelers, or drivers and passengers within the project corridor. Exposures of highway travelers to the surrounding views are relatively long or short due to traffic conditions and topography. The topography within VAU-1 and VAU-2 results in a moderately low viewer exposure. In VAU-3 north of the Santa Ana River, the road is straighter and the viewer exposure is longer, resulting in a moderately high exposure. The overall highway traveler exposure is considered moderate. Considering the daily commuters are more sensitive and the infrequent travelers are less sensitive, the combined viewer sensitivity would be considered moderate. These viewers are considered a have a moderate sensitivity. The overall viewer response is considered to be moderate. • Other local travelers (roadway bicyclists or pedestrians) passing through the surrounding area. These viewers have limited views of the I-15 corridor due to the varying topography in the area. The overall local traveler exposure is considered moderate. Local travelers are generally passing through the surrounding area, and their degree of awareness of change is considered to be low to moderate. These viewers are considered to have a moderate sensitivity. The overall viewer response is considered to be moderate. Recreational and residential viewers are considered the most sensitive, and the highway and other local travelers have the greatest viewer exposure. The overall viewer response along the project corridor is anticipated to be low to moderately high. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-169 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics 2.1.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary Construction for the project is anticipated to last for approximately two years, which could result in minor short-term visual impacts. Construction impacts could result from staging areas, warning signage, equipment storage, and night-time construction that may require additional lighting. These construction activities may temporarily obscure views for highway travelers. Additional construction -associated disturbance would include removal of existing landscaping in some areas. All staging areas are expected to be located within the right of way and could require night security lighting. None of the staging areas are anticipated to be located adjacent to residential areas that would be affected by night security lighting. In addition to light spill effects, highway travelers would experience changes in the visual environment, including dust from construction. As described in measure VIS-1, to minimize light spill from temporary construction activities, light fixtures would direct light downward to reduce impacts on area residents. With the implementation of measure VIS-1, no direct or indirect temporary adverse effects are anticipated with the project. Permanent Key Views The project would result in visual changes related to expansion of pavement and bridge structures, addition of noise barriers, and the removal of landscaping. The visual simulations for the project were created by applying the conceptual designs of the project to the eight key view photographs to show the anticipated post -project conditions. The visual simulations are strictly for conceptual analysis and are not intended to provide a precise, scaled depiction of the project; rather, they illustrate the potential future post project visual character of the project area. The visual simulations represent typical views and the potential changes that would be expected. Five visual simulations were prepared for locations identified in blue in Figure 2-14 to illustrate the anticipated visual changes that would result from the project. Existing condition photographs and their accompanying proposed visual conditions are presented in Figures 2-15 through 2-22. The following presents the visual setting, viewer response, and resource change for each key view. Key View 1 Weirick Road Existing Condition Located within VAU-1, Key View 1 is located at the Weirick Road northbound on -ramp in Corona. This key view is directed toward the northwest. From this location, the elevation slopes from west to east. This view is of a representative location for a changeable message sign from the highway traveler perspective. A visual simulation was not created for the proposed condition Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-170 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics at Key View 1 because of the low potential for visual resource change. A representative photograph is included as an example of an express lane changeable message sign in Figure 2- 15; however, the actual changeable message sign installed as part of the project may differ. Viewer Response Key View 1 represents the highway traveler's perspective where a changeable message sign is proposed. The addition of a changeable message sign in this area would be consistent with other large-scale signs along the highway associated with commercial businesses. Highway travelers would continue to have a background view of the surrounding mountains. The highway viewer response at Key View 1 is considered low. Resource Change This changeable message sign would announce the upcoming express lanes. The addition of an express lanes changeable message sign at this location would not change the existing highway landscape or impact the background views of the mountains. Project construction would occur within the highway right of way; no rock outcroppings within the foreground views would be removed. In addition, the proposed overhead signs would not obstruct the middleground views of the Gavilan Hills. No impacts on rock outcroppings as a scenic resource from the I-15 would occur. In addition, this area currently has existing large-scale commercial and highway signs. The addition of the express lane signage would not contrast with the intactness and unity of the area. The overall level of resource change at Key View 1 is considered low. Key View 2 - El Cerrito Road Underpass Existing Condition Key View 2, presented in Figure 2-16, is located on the eastbound side of El Cerrito Road in Corona. This key view is directed toward the west. This view is of a representative location of an I-15 overcrossing from a local traveler and recreational viewer perspective. Viewer Response Key View 2 represents a local traveler's perspective of the widened I-15 overcrossing of El Cerrito Road. The overcrossing structures would be widened to the middle and would connect the two separate structures. The extension of the bridge overcrossing and closing the gap between the existing structures would decrease the amount of natural light, but this would not change the actual views within this area. This minimal change would not adversely impact travelers' views. The viewer response at Key View 2 is considered low. Resource Change As shown in the Key View 2 visual simulation, presented in Figure 2-16, the visual changes would be limited to a reduction of available natural light for travelers under the two I-15 structures over El Cerrito Road. The reduction in light would be limited to motorists on El Cerrito Road and other local travelers (pedestrians or roadway bicyclists). Additional lighting would be provided at this location for security purposes. The bridge expansions would not create any visual changes to the local visual resources or impact the background views of the mountains. The overall level of resource change for Key View 2 is considered low. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-171 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics Key View 3 El Cerrito Road Existing Condition Key View 3, presented in Figure 2-17, is located on the westbound side of El Cerrito Road in Corona. This key view is directed toward the southeast. From this location, the topography slopes from west to east. This view is of a representative location of a photo toll responder from a highway traveler and other local traveler perspective. Viewer Response Key View 3 provides the highway traveler's perspective of a photo toll responder. These viewers have a moderate viewer response. The addition of a photo toll responder would introduce an urban element that would be consistent with the area. The proposed photo toll responders would be installed within the existing right of way, and this project component would not change the existing visual character of the highway. The overall viewer response at Key View 3 is considered low. The highway travelers may experience brief obstructed background views of the surrounding mountains; however, the addition of a photo toll responder within the roadway right of way would be similar to a large-scale commercial sign and would be consistent with the existing visual conditions, which include large-scale commercial and highway signs. The overall level of viewer response for Key View 3 is considered low. Resource Change A visual simulation was not completed for the proposed condition of Key View 3. As stated above, a representative photograph of a toll responder has been provided in Figure 2-17; however, the appearance of the actual photo toll responder installed as part of the project may differ. The introduction of the photo toll responder would not change the existing highway landscape. Temporary obstructed background views of the surrounding mountains may occur; however, this area currently has large-scale commercial and highway signs as an existing condition throughout the project corridor. Project construction would occur within the highway right of way, and no rock outcroppings within the foreground views would be removed. In addition, the proposed overhead signs would not obstruct the middleground views of the Gavilan Hills. No impacts on rock outcroppings as a scenic resource from the I-15 would occur. The overall level of visual resource change for Key View 3 is considered low Key View 4 Cresta Verde Golf Course Existing Condition Key View 4, presented in Figure 2-18, is located northeast of the I-15/SR-91 interchange, along Cresta Road, in Corona. Key View 4 is directed toward the northwest. From this location the freeway -to -freeway interchange structures are elevated above I-15, which is at a lower elevation than the golf course and other surrounding land uses. This view is of a representative location of project components from the perspective of a recreational user. Viewer Response Key View 4 represents a recreational viewer's perspective from the Cresta Verde Golf Course. These viewers have a moderate viewer response. The I-15/SR-91 interchange is heavily traveled and can be viewed at a middleground distance from the golf course. Because of the layout of the golf course and the topography of the area, only the clubhouse and the parking lot have a clear view of the two highways. The addition of express lanes, egress/ingress lanes, and signage would Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-172 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics not change the views within this area. The background mountain views would still be visible. Although these viewers have a moderate viewer response, the highway is located approximately 260 feet from the golf course and is situated at a lower elevation. The recreational viewer response to Key View 4 would be reduced to a low viewer response due to local topography. Resource Change As shown in the Key View 4 visual simulation, presented in Figure 2-18, the addition of express lanes, ingress/egress lanes, and associated signage would not change the existing highway landscape or impact the background views of the mountains. The overall highway landscape would remain similar to the existing condition, with the exception of the removal of the highway median for the construction of the express lanes in this area. The overall resource change at Key View 4 is considered low. Key View 5 Hidden Valley Parkway Existing Condition Key View 5, presented in Figure 2-19, is located on the northwest side of Hidden Valley Parkway, in Norco. This key view is directed toward the north. From this location, I-15 is located at a slightly lower elevation than the surrounding area. This view is of a representative location of the proposed ingress/egress locations from the perspectives of a highway traveler and a commercial user. Viewer Response Key View 5 includes highway travelers moving at high speeds and commercial users located adjacent to the highway. The highway viewers have a moderate viewer response, and commercial viewers have a low viewer response. The express lane ingress/egress lanes would not change the perception of the overall highway. The highway viewers would still have background views of the surrounding mountains. The commercial viewers would have limited views of the highway because the retail storefronts face away from the highway and the existing noise barriers. The overall viewer response for Key View 5 is considered low. Resource Change As shown in the Key View 5 visual simulation, presented in Figure 2-19, the addition of express lane ingress/egress lanes would not change the highway landscape. The overall highway landscape would remain similar to the existing condition, with the exception of the removal of the highway median for the construction of the express lanes. In addition, the background views of the mountains to the north would not be affected by the project components. The overall resource change is considered low. Key View 6 Second Street Existing Condition Key View 6, presented in Figure 2-20, is adjacent to the Second Street northbound on -ramp in Norco. This key view is directed toward the north. From this location, I-15 is located about 20 feet closer than the surrounding area. This view is of a representative location of a potential noise barrier, should one be found necessary, from a highway traveler perspective. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-173 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics Viewer Response Key View 6 provides the highway traveler's perspective of a proposed noise barrier along the east side of the highway. Highway travelers would have a moderate viewer response. This portion of the I-15 corridor is elevated in relation to the residential areas to the east and commercial areas to the west. Highway travelers would continue to have background views of the mountains to the north. Considering I-15 is elevated in this section of the corridor and the lack of visual resources in the area, incorporation of the noise barrier would not change the overall highway traveler response. Viewer response at Key View 6 for a highway traveler is considered low. Resource Change As shown in the Key View 6 simulation presented in Figure 2-20, the visual change would be the addition of a noise barrier to the east along the highway right of way. This noise barrier would reduce views to the east for highway travelers. The current views to the east are limited to residences (located at a lower elevation) and some low elevation hills behind the existing landscape. The visual resources in the area are limited to the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The noise barrier would block views of the hillside to the east; however, these views are presently limited by landscape screens. The overall level of resource change for Key View 6 is considered low. Key View 7 Sierra Avenue Existing Condition Key View 7, presented in Figure 2-21, is located on Sierra Avenue in Norco. This key view is directed toward the northwest. At this location, I-15 is approximately 35 to 40 feet lower than the adjacent residences. This view is of a representative location of a noise barrier from the perspective of a residential viewer. Viewer Response Key View 7 represents a residential viewer perspective of a proposed noise barrier location. The residential views have been identified to have a moderately high viewer response because of their high viewer sensitivity. Two to three residences in this area currently have obstructed views of the Santa Ana River and the riparian vegetation due to fencing and trees. The construction of a noise barrier in this location would block the current middleground views of the Santa Ana River. Although residential users have been identified to have an overall viewer response of moderately high, the foreground views at Key View 7 are currently obstructed. The residential viewer at Key View 7 would have a reduced exposure, which would reduce the overall viewer response impact level to moderate. Resource Change As shown in the Key View 7 visual simulation presented in Figure 2-21, the construction of a noise barrier would restrict the foreground views of the fencing and trees. The middleground views of the Santa Ana River and its associated riparian vegetation as a visual resource would be restricted for approximately two or three residences on Sierra Avenue. The level of resource change at Key View 7 is considered moderate because the existing foreground views are currently obstructed by chain -link fencing and trees, and there are a limited number of residential views affected. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-174 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics Key View 8 Santa Ana River Existing Condition Key View 8, presented in Figure 2-22, is located east of the I-15 at the Santa Ana River bridge in Norco. This key view is located within a linear recreational area (Santa Ana River Trail Park) and is directed toward the west. From this location, the I-15 bridge is elevated. This is a representative view of the location of the proposed bridge improvements from the perspective of the recreational, residential, and other traveler viewers. Viewer Response Key View 8 includes recreational, residential, and other traveler's perspectives from the Santa Ana River Trail Park area. These viewers have a moderately high viewer response. Viewers in this area consist of recreational and other travelers who are walking, biking, or equestrian riding and therefore have a long duration of the view. These viewers would be considered to have a high sensitivity to any substantial visual changes; however, views of the highway are limited because of the topography and vegetation. The bridge expansion would not be visible to recreational users along the river banks and would only be visible to recreationalists as they pass under the bridge. A few residents are located in this area as well. These viewers would have a similar experience as the recreational viewers and would have a limited view of the bridge improvements. Viewers would continue to have a background view of the surrounding mountains. The overall viewer response for Key View 8 is considered low. Resource Change A visual simulation was not completed for the proposed bridge expansion; however, views would be similar to the bridge expansion presented in Key View 2 for the El Cerrito Road underpass. The visual change in Key View 8, presented in Figure 2-22, would be limited to vegetation removal between the two bridges in order to close the middle between the two bridges. With the exception of riparian vegetation currently growing between the bridges, no visual changes to the natural landscape surrounding the existing highway would be visible. The background views of the mountains would still be visible. The overall level of resource change at Key View 8 is considered low. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-175 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics Table 2-49. Summary of Key View Narrative Ratings Visual Assessment Unit Key View Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Viewer Response + Resource Change = Visual Impact Weirick Canyon 1 L L L 2 L L L 3 L L L Corona/Norco 4 L L L 5 L L L Santa Ana River 6 L L L 7 M M M 8 L L L Notes: Low - L; Moderate - M; Moderately Low - ML; Moderately High - MH. The overall key view visual impacts identified in Table 2-49, above, are considered low with the exception of Key View 7, identified as a moderate visual impact. Key View 7 would affect residential viewers who may consider the construction of a noise barrier up to 16 feet high an obstruction of their views of the Santa Ana River and its associated riparian vegetation. The level of resource change for Key View 7 is considered moderate because the existing foreground view is obstructed by chain -link fencing and trees, and there are a limited number of residential viewers affected. The visual character of the project would be fully compatible with the existing visual character of the corridor. In comparison to the existing urban landscape surrounding the project corridor, the addition of the express lanes would be consistent in form and scale with the surrounding visual character. Furthermore, the express lanes would possess continuity with the existing highway, which is the dominant feature in the majority of the project corridor. The overall visual character of the existing project corridor is considered to have low visual character, and the visual resources would not be altered by the project. A portion of I-15 from SR-76 near the San Luis Rey River south of the project area and extending north to SR-91 in Corona is identified as eligible for the Scenic Highway Program. A portion of the eligible section of highway is within the project limits; however, the highway has not been officially designated by Caltrans as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2013). As a recognized eligible scenic highway, the project would reinforce eligibility. The inclusion of unifying elements would preserve eligibility from the visual/scenic perspective. Visual resources include rock outcroppings indigenous to the region in cut slope areas created during construction of I-15 in the project corridor, gentle slopes, and mature trees in the foreground to middleground views. The Gavilan Hills contain rock outcroppings that are highly disturbed as a result of aggregate mining No rock outcroppings within the project area would be removed for construction of the project. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-176 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics As described in measures VIS-2 through VIS-6, retaining walls, noise barriers, storm water basins, lighting, and signage would be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible and would include vegetative and architectural treatments that would reinforce the visual continuity of the corridor. Noise barriers would be planted with vines to soften the visual impacts and intrusive nature of the walls. Sound walls would be landscaped with trees and vines suitable for reducing the scale and visual intrusion of the wall. Slope paving treatment would be provided where structures are widened to the outside in locations where treatment would be most visible to communities along the corridor. This would be consistent with the SR-91 CIP Project Aesthetics and Landscape Master Plan (PALM) and existing conditions along the corridor. With the implementation of measures VIS-2 through VIS-6, no direct or indirect permanent adverse impacts on visual resources are anticipated from the project. No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would retain the existing visual conditions, with the exception of the noise barriers to be constructed along I-15 as identified by the SR-91 CIP project. The SR-91 CIP includes noise barriers and associated landscaping along I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and SR-91. In addition, the No -Build Alternative does not preclude the construction of other future improvements or general maintenance to improve the operation of the facility or incorporate safety enhancements. The project would not be constructed, and visual impacts would not occur. The No -Build Alternative would not involve construction activities and, therefore, would not result in temporary or permanent visual effects in the project area. 2.1.8.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES Caltrans and FHWA mandate that a qualitative/aesthetic approach is taken to address visual quality loss in the project corridor. The project would take into consideration the aesthetic hardscape and landscape planting for the SR-91 CIP consistent with the I-215/SR-91 Corridor Master Plan and the PALM. The following avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the project: VIS-1: Construction Lighting. To minimize light spill due to temporary construction activities, light fixtures will be designed to direct light downward to reduce impacts on area residents. All related lighting will meet the appropriate city lighting standards as listed in the Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and County of Riverside General Plan and Zoning requirements. VIS-2: Noise Barriers. The design of all noise barriers will comply with Caltrans standards for noise attenuation, safety requirements, and other pertinent standards. The design of noise barriers requires compliance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Standards, and aesthetic treatments will be reviewed and approved by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. Noise barriers near right of way boundaries will be designed so that access control fencing will not be needed. "Dead" spaces between walls and fences will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-177 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Visual/Aesthetics VIS-3: Architectural Surface Treatment and Detailing. Architectural features, textures, color, and transparency will be used to mitigate the appearance of noise barrier surfaces. Walls will incorporate architectural features such as 1) pilasters and caps to provide shadow lines that will provide relief from monolithic appearance and 2) interesting block patterns to reduce their apparent scale and reduce the potential for graffiti. Noise barriers will be designed to be visually compatible with the surrounding community character and consistent with the SR-91 CIP Project Aesthetics and Landscape Master Plan (PALM), where appropriate. VIS-4: Structure Aesthetics. Aesthetic treatment for bridge barriers, abutments, and other structure elements will be consistent with the SR-91 CIP PALM. Where bridge structures are widened to the inside, roadway undercrossing slope paving will be constructed as "in -kind" to be consistent with the existing slope treatment. VIS-5: Landscaping. The design of landscaping will comply with Caltrans standards for aesthetic treatments and will be reviewed by the Caltrans District Landscape Architect. Landscape types will be consistent with the SR-91 CIP PALM. VIS-6: a) Construction. Upon completion of the project, landscaping will be replaced "in kind" for any vegetation removed for the purposes of project construction. b) Corridor Landscaping. In general, highway landscaping will be consistent with the character of adjacent community landscaping. In communities that are characterized by ornamental landscaping, drought -resistant plants will be consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California guidelines, which promote the use of xeric (adapted to arid conditions) landscaping techniques. The irrigation design and implementation practices will also conform to the water conservation measures established in Assembly Bill 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (September 9, 2009). The plant materials will also be durable relative to the air quality of the project area. Lighting, Signage, and Miscellaneous Highway Hardware. Signage, lighting, and miscellaneous highway feature mitigation designs will be detailed in the final engineering plans. Lighting and signage pedestals on structures will occur at pilasters or be incorporated in other architectural features. Highway lighting and signage will conform to Caltrans design guidelines. Signage with changeable elements or self - illuminated features such as changeable message signs will be excluded from viewsheds containing scenic resources to the greatest extent possible. Bridge lighting will be extended from the existing lighting along the abutment walls. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-178 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Cultural Resources 2.1.9 Cultural Resources 2.1.9.1 REGULATORY SETTING The term "cultural resources" as used in this document refers to all "built environment" resources (structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.), culturally important resources, and archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic), regardless of significance. Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, sets forth national policy and procedures regarding historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800]. On January 1, 2004, a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Advisory Council, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Department went into effect for Department projects, both state and local, with FHWA involvement. The PA implements the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR 800, streamlining the Section 106 process and delegating certain responsibilities to the Department; the First Amended Section 106 PA became effective January 1, 2014. The FHWA's responsibilities under the PA have been assigned to the Department as part of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program (23 United States Code [USC] 327). Historic properties may also be covered under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, which regulates the "use" of land from historic properties. See Appendix B for specific information regarding Section 4(f). Historical resources are considered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, which established the California Register of Historical Resources. PRC Section 5024 requires state agencies to identify and protect state-owned resources that meet National Register of Historic Places listing criteria. It further specifically requires the Department to inventory state-owned structures in its rights -of - way. Additionally, PRC Section 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e. AB 52) provides additional opportunities for consultation between Native American tribes and CEQA lead agencies when an undertaking's anticipated CEQA environmental document will exceed a categorical exemption. 2.1.9.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Information used in this section is based upon the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), October 2014 (Caltrans 2014c), approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), October 2014 (Caltrans 2014d), and the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), October 2014 (Caltrans 2014e). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-179 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Cultural Resources The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project was established in consultation with Gary Jones, environmental planner and archaeologist (PQS); Andrew Walters, architectural historian (PQS); and Daniel Ciacchella, project manager, in January 2014. The APE was established as the limits of proposed construction, which is the existing right of way, temporary construction easements plus a sufficient buffer to allow heavy equipment to maneuver, and staging areas. Permanent right of way acquisitions would not be needed to accommodate the improvements. In most areas of the APE, depth of work would be limited to three feet to cut, grade, and prepare existing fill areas in the median for paving. At bridge abutments, construction would extend up to depths of 30 feet for drilling piles or driving shafts for bridge or overpass improvements. On September 18 and 23, 2008, prior to field investigations, a literature search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of the Eastern Information Center's electronic databases for previously identified historical/archaeological resources in or near the APE and all available cultural resource survey and excavation reports and site records for an area within a one -mile radius of the project area. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Historic Resources Inventory were reviewed. The Corona 1947, Elsinore 1901, Lake Elsinore 1942, Ontario 1954, and Riverside 1901 USGS quadrangle maps were inspected as well. The record search revealed that 92 cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a one -mile radius of the project APE. Of these surveys, 29 have been conducted within the project area. Within a one -mile radius of the project area, 121 cultural resource sites that include archaeological and historic built environment resources have been identified. Two of these resources are located within the APE: prehistoric site CA-RIV- 1099 and an electric transmission line, 33-16681. A Phase I archaeological pedestrian survey of the project APE was conducted from January 26 through 30, 2009 and July 30 through August 8, 2011. The majority of the project APE is a developed urban area within the existing lanes of the I-15, existing roads, concrete culverts, railroad alignments, sound walls, residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial complexes, and landscape vegetation. Ground surface visibility was poor to nonexistent within the majority of the APE because the surface was paved and heavily disturbed with fill from road maintenance activities. Open areas were surveyed by walking parallel transects of 10 to 15 meters where possible. In areas that had dense vegetation and were narrow, zigzag and meandering transects were conducted by the surveyors to cover as much ground as possible. Ground surface visibility within these open areas was poor to nonexistent due to thick vegetation and grass. Of the two prerecorded cultural resources located within the APE, only one—P-33-16681: Southern Sierras "O" Transmission Line —was relocated during the archaeological survey. The "O" line (open line) is a single -circuit 115-kilowatt power transmission line that was built in 1929 by the Southern Sierras Power Company. The transmission line ran from a steam -generating power plant in Seal Beach, California, to a major power switching substation in San Bernardino. The archaeological survey indicated that although the transmission line crosses overhead on I-15, none of the transmission towers are located in the APE. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-180 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Cultural Resources The second site identified by the record search as within the APE, 33-1099/CA-RIV-1099, is a prerecorded prehistoric site originally described as a seasonal or temporary habitation site consisting of four shallow and highly eroded bedrock mortars and two milling slicks. It was not re -located during the archaeological survey. This site was recorded prior to construction of I-15, and the central portion of the recorded site area has been removed by cut and fill for the I-15. No cultural materials were found in the recorded site area; however, dense vegetation prevented adequate survey of what remains of the recorded site area. In addition to the literature and records search, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted regarding the project on May 10, 2013. The NAHC provided a list of Native American groups and individuals who might have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area in Riverside County. Letters describing the project area and maps indicating the project location were sent on July 12, 2013 to 10 Native American contacts provided by the NAHC. One telephone response was received to the letters that were sent out in July 2013. Follow-up phone calls were made on March 26, 2014, indicating to Native American tribes that the I-15 Express Lanes Project is a federal project and requesting Section 106 consultation. Three telephone responses were received. Four Native American tribes requested additional information and it was provided to them. One of the interested tribes responded by letter on May 15, 2014, and the remaining three tribes were contacted by telephone on June 20, 2014. A detailed discussion of Native American coordination carried out for the project is included in Chapter 3. An additional cycle of consultation was initiated by Caltrans on September 10, 2015 with eight Native American tribes in accordance with PRC 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (AB52). Three groups (Pechanga, Soboba, and Morongo) chose to pursue government consultation under AB52. Following individual meetings between the Caltrans District Native American Coordinator and tribal cultural staff for each group, it was agreed by all parties that consultation under AB52 was complete. No new cultural resources were identified, and no additional mitigation measures were requested. A detailed discussion of the AB52 consultation efforts is included in Chapter 3. In October and November of 2008, letters were sent to local historical societies, historic preservation groups, and other interested parties who may have knowledge or concerns about historic properties in the area. In the letters, information regarding any historic buildings, districts, sites, objects, or archeological sites of significance within the project area was requested. New letters were sent on March 26, 2014. A detailed discussion of this coordination is included in Chapter 3. Architectural field surveys of all properties within the proposed APE were conducted on October 9 and 11, 2008; November 11, 2008; and February 11, 2009 according to standard Caltrans guidelines and procedures. One previously recorded built environment resource was identified in the project APE that was not exempt under the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA). Eight built environment resources requiring evaluation in the HRER are located within the APE. These include seven single-family residences and one electric transmission line. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-181 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Cultural Resources The seven residences within the project APE that were evaluated include a combination of commercial and single- and multiple -family residences. The buildings include a mix of early -to mid -twentieth century construction. All seven properties evaluated within the APE are not eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR because they lack historical associations, integrity, or quality of significance. One previously recorded electric transmission line—P-33-16681: Southern Sierras "O" Transmission Line —identified in the project area was not exempt under the PA. This property does not retain key aspects of integrity and does not appear eligible for the NRHP under any criteria. A large portion of this power line was replaced or demolished prior to the recordation of the resource in 2007, including the portion crossing the APE. Therefore, given the major loss of integrity, this power line was evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP under any criteria. The HRER determined that the seven residences and one electric transmission line are not historical resources under CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, because they do not meet the CRHR Criteria outlined in PCR §5024.1. 2.1.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary Two cultural resources were previously recorded within the APE. Previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site CA-RIV-1099, mapped as lying within the APE, could not be re -located. This site is located in an area of dense covering vegetation, and it is not known if cultural materials from this site extend into the APE. Because this site is located in an area of the APE where only advanced signage would take place, and since the signage would be limited to the existing right of way, where the site has already been destroyed, no further work is required at this site for this project. Eight historical built environment resources were evaluated in the HRER. All of these resources were evaluated and determined to be Not Eligible for the NRHP and the CRHR, and all others in the APE are exempted under Attachment 4 of the PA. No impacts on historic resources would occur as a result of the project. If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earth -moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. Additional surveys may be required if project plans change to include areas not previously surveyed for cultural resources. In November 2014, Caltrans consulted with the SHPO regarding the above -referenced findings. SHPO concurred by letter dated November 20, 2014 that none of the evaluated properties located within the APE were eligible for the NRHP. Pursuant to Stipulation IX.A of the Section 106 PA, Caltrans made the determination that a finding of No Historic Properties Affected is appropriate for this undertaking. If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the county coroner contacted. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-182 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Cultural Resources the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact the Caltrans District 8 Environmental Branch so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. It is Caltrans' policy to avoid cultural resources whenever possible. Further investigations may be needed if unanticipated cultural sites are encountered that cannot be avoided by the project. If buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, it is Caltrans' policy that work stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. An additional archaeological survey would be required if changes are made to the project to include areas not previously surveyed. No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, or cultural resources of any kind, that qualify for consideration under Section 4(f) are present within the project's APE. Refer to Appendix B, Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f). Permanent No long-term impacts on historical or archaeological cultural resources would occur. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, no modifications to existing structures or the land would occur; therefore, no construction- or operation -related effects to historical or archaeological cultural resources would result. 2.1.9.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES Measures CR-1 and CR-2, which are standard measures associated with all Caltrans projects, are included to ensure that potential effects to cultural resources or human remains are avoided if these were to be discovered during construction. CR-1: CR-2: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earth -moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the county coroner contacted. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will then notify the Most Likely Descendent. At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact the Caltrans District 8 Environmental Branch so that they may work with the Most Likely Descendent on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. CR-3: If project plans change following the approval of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), dated October 2014, or if the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-183 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.1. Human Environment Cultural Resources Undertaking will otherwise not be implemented as originally proposed, including, but not limited to, changes in project scope or limits, or work outside the approved Area of Potential Effects (APE) approved October 7, 2014, Caltrans will re -open NHPA Section 106 and CEQA consultation pertaining to historical resources in order to determine whether the findings made in the HPSR remain valid. If changes are made to the project as described above, Caltrans PQS will determine the applicability of this measure, and additional studies may be required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-184 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain 2.2 Physical Environment 2.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain 2.2.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. The Federal Highway Administration requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650 Subpart A. To comply, the following must be analyzed: • The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments. • Risks of the action. • Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. • Support of incompatible floodplain development. • Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values affected by the project. The base floodplain is defined as "the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year." An encroachment is defined as "an action within the limits of the base floodplain." 2.2.1.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The primary sources used in the preparation of this section are the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Preliminary Drainage Report, September 2014 (Caltrans 2014f) and the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Location Hydraulics Study and Floodplain Encroachment Report, August 2014 (Caltrans 2014g). Topography ranges from flat or gently sloping at the northern extent of the project area to rugged hills within the southern extent. Elevations within the Interstate 15 (I-15) project corridor range from 570 to 1,115 feet above mean sea level (amsl), which affects the drainage system surrounding the project area. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District uses a system developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that classifies soils into four different hydrologic soil groups. These NRCS soil classifications are further described below: • Group A —Low runoff potential. Soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of deep, well- to excessively drained sands or gravels. The soils have a high rate of water transmission. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-185 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain • Group B—Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well- to well -drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. • Group C—Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water or soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. • Group D—High runoff potential. Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Soils of each of these classifications are present along the project corridor. The predominant soil type within the corridor is classification C. The project is located primarily in Riverside County, California. This area is generally characterized by a Mediterranean -type climate, which is semi -arid with mild winters and hot summers. As in all of southern California, most of the rainfall occurs during winter and early spring. Average precipitation in Corona, near the southern project limit, is approximately 15 inches per year. Average precipitation in Norco and Eastvale, near the northern project limit, is approximately 12 inches per year. The project is shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels 06065C0018G, 0681G, 0683G, 0691G, 0693G, 1356G, 1360G, 1370G, and 1390G (FEMA n.d.). As shown in Figure 2-23, the majority of the project is located within FEMA Zone X, which is defined as being outside of the 1-percent annual chance (100-year) floodplain. Several areas of the project north of the State Route 91 (SR-91)/I-15 interchange are located within shaded Zone X, which is defined as being within the 0.2-percent annual chance (500-year) floodplain. However, there are several locations in which the project's improvements are adjacent to or crossing a known FEMA-designated 1-percent annual chance (100—year) floodplain (i.e., Zone A and Zone AE). FEMA defines these flood zones as the following: • Zone X—Area determined to be outside the 0.2-percent annual chance flood. • Zone X (Shaded) —Areas of 0.2-percent annual chance flood; areas of 1-percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile and areas protected by levees from the 1-percent annual chance flood. • Zone A —Special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood event; no base flood elevations determined. • Zone AE—Special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood event; base flood elevations determined Figure 2-23 shows base flood elevations in the project area as indicated by the applicable FEMA FIRM panels in relation to the project. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-186 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project raze �' - - alma i kg lip 244 _ r.. )97wacop 4{0 ., 44. N In 6.,,,,,-,.. ........ I iii 'Mit: lilt* 6. lh, -'4.-"•.4m. ", , aa11 a �v_ ■i is ,r j'. led. a #��� + .I r �l_ 4 �� :: + ``tax .r `_ : _ 1 .is �'• ." • ii li+� 1 s.-:al=--iil •1.1V't3!EI IIIi�' l•.- _:��'\f'7117�111' �. El 1111 o k •. f i i sy _ 51, 1 1 1 kii " : it . „r"••• x�� d d 0 1d d O d C¢ d a 0 0 cv G `ro ect an: r .� TIMICATTi al C a) o_ P dvance i na• C7(11 r cD LEI � '0 m s a = Cr)'V+ r^' L c a� J N 7 y 65 CL sw 4.0 � r N cl) •72. L2 o c Li ti ource: a ornia ntera • enc ►raters e• ► a • a • • • a water IKINE Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-188 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project LOS ANGELESCOUNTY SAN BERNARDINOCOUNTY RIVERSIDECOUNTY Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance &gnage Limits [ILL Zone A AE Zone X (Shaded) Flowline Source: California interagency Watershed Map of 1999 (Caiwater 2.2.1) (2004) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Fe et Figure 2-23 Floodplains in the Study Area, Sheet 2 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-190 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain Existing Drainage Conditions Throughout the project corridor, the general drainage flow pattern is from either east to west or west to east, depending on the location. Several methods are used to convey storm water off and through the highway right of way along the existing I-15 corridor. Existing storm drain facilities run parallel as well as perpendicular to I-15 as the drainage condition dictates. The center median is largely composed of native soil that collects and conveys runoff from the existing roadway to the nearest inlet via a series of graded high points, flow -through situations, and sump locations. The shoulder areas typically use graded swales, concrete ribbon gutters, and asphaltic concrete dikes —or a combination thereof —to direct flow to the nearest inlet or low point. The project area is also intersected by several major washes, rivers, and creeks along its alignment, most notably the Santa Ana River and Temescal Wash. 2.2.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary With the implementation of water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook and the Construction Site Best Management Practices Manual, including soil stabilization, flow conveyance control, and sediment control, surface runoff water quality impacts during construction would be minimized. In addition, no short-term floodplain encroachments are expected as a result of the project construction activities. Therefore, no direct or indirect adverse short-term impacts would occur from the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Permanent Hydraulic Methodology Drainage basins within the project limits of the I-15 right of way were delineated based on existing or inlet locations and elevation contours. Hydrology maps were created to depict the drainage basin boundaries, basin names, basin acreages, direction of runoff, and existing conveyance facilities. This information was then used to analyze the onsite existing storm drain facilities and the hydraulic properties of the project improvements (i.e., new paved median shoulder capacities, etc.). The overall drainage condition concept would remain similar to the existing drainage condition with respect to direction of flow and ultimate conveyance facilities. However, there are several project changes that would alter the method by which storm water would be conveyed. The project would construct lanes in the primarily unpaved median and would add retaining walls and noise barriers at various locations within the project limits This would cause an increase in net impervious surface area within the project limits and would increase surface runoff. In addition, the project would result in capping the existing inlets and adding new inlets along the new edge of the shoulder to intercept storm water runoff. New longitudinal drainage systems would either be constructed along the freeway shoulders or along the right of way to carry the increase in drainage associated with the widening of the freeway. In areas where the freeway is super elevated and drains toward the median, existing inlets would be replaced by a combination of inlets and/or grated line drains. There is an extensive network of edge drains within the project limits that would be protected and allowed to drain into inlets as necessary. Existing facilities would be protected in place where feasible. However, to Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-191 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain accommodate the project improvements, existing headwalls would be removed, storm drain facilities would be extended to accommodate the project widening, and new headwalls would be constructed. Widening of the Santa Ana River Bridge would require capturing deck flow within a drainage conduit system that would direct flows to a water quality treatment BMP prior to discharging into the receiving water body. The proposed drainage inlets and conveyance facilities were determined to be necessary at locations where anticipated stormwater runoff would exceed the current capacity of the conveyance facility. New and, in some cases, larger diameter drainage systems would be necessary at various locations based on tributary flow rates and length of pipe needed to tie into an existing drainage system. Several culverts would need to be extended based on factors such as locations of new retaining walls and clear recovery zone restrictions. All existing inlets along the roadway shoulder would be relocated to the new edge of shoulder. New longitudinal drainage systems would either be constructed along the freeway shoulders or along the right of way, with additional associated pipes to carry the increase in drainage associated with the widening. Several regional Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District facilities cross beneath I-15 within the project limits. Coordination with this district would be required during the PS&E phase of the project to ensure that the project would not adversely affect those facilities. Based on the hydraulic modeling completed for the project, changes to the base (100-year) floodplain are anticipated to be minimal due to the project improvements. The project would not generate considerable quantities of runoff that could create a flood hazard. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) includes improvements to an existing highway that would not redirect or impede flood flows. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not generate substantial quantities of runoff that could create a flood hazard or that could cause a substantial increase in the potential for people to be impacted by a flood event. No direct or indirect adverse long-term impacts are anticipated related to risk to life or property, impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, or impacts on floodplain encroachment would occur as a result of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). The project crosses or is directly adjacent to three FEMA 100-year floodplains. Only at Temescal Wash would the project be constructed within the 100-year floodplain. Impacts from the proposed features within the 100-year floodplain are limited to the immediate vicinity of the project and would not result in impacts on flood conveyance facilities upstream or downstream of the project site. No project features are proposed within the floodplain at the other two floodplain locations, and the project would not alter the conveyance facilities in any manner. Based on these conditions, the project would result in no permanent adverse impacts on the 100-year floodplains. The Preliminary Drainage Report provided conceptual analysis of the proposed onsite drainage improvements associated with the project. Additional detailed drainage analysis would occur and a Final Drainage Report be prepared during final design, based on an updated hydraulic model. In addition, a detailed survey of the existing hydrological features to determine actual as -built conditions would be performed. The results of the survey would be incorporated into an updated hydraulic model for both existing and project conditions. Any drainage deficiencies identified in Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-192 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain the Final Drainage Report would be addressed through design adjustments. With adherence to these standard Caltrans practices during final design, no direct or indirect adverse long-term impacts to hydrology or floodplains would result from the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, the project improvements would not be constructed. Therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not result in short-term or long-term direct or indirect adverse impacts related to hydrology or floodplains. 2.2.1.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to Caltrans standard design and construction practices, which are required on all State Highway System projects, impacts related to hydrology or floodplains would be avoided or minimized. No additional measures are required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-193 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 2.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 2.2.2.1 REGULATORY SETTING Federal Clean Water Act In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point sources unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This act and its amendments are known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Congress has amended the act several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important CWA sections: • Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. • Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below). • Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) administer this permitting program in California. Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). • Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The goal of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Standard permits. There are two types of General permits: Regional permits and Nationwide permits. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects. Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of the USACE's Standard permits. There are two types of Standard permits: Individual permits and Letters of Permission. For Standard permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 40 Part 230), and whether the permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill ' A point source is any discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a man-made ditch. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-194 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on waters of the U.S. and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. According to the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent2 standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause "significant degradation" to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and Other Waters section. State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act California's Porter -Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This act requires a "Report of Waste Discharge" for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface and/or groundwater of the state. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the state. Waters of the state include more than just waters of the U.S., like groundwater and surface waters not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits discharges of "waste" as defined, and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of "pollutant." Discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Details about water quality standards in a project area are included in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, Regional Boards designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions and then set criteria necessary to protect these uses. As a result, the water quality standards developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on that use. In addition, the SWRCB identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific pollutants. These waters are then state -listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a state determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or non -point source controls (NPDES permits or WDRs), the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non -point, and natural) for a given watershed. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB administers water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWQCBs are responsible for 2 The U.S. EPA defines "effluent" as "wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall." Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-195 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). An MS4 is defined as "any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human -made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water." The SWRCB has identified the Department as an owner/operator of an MS4 under federal regulations. The Department's MS4 permit covers all Department rights -of -way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted. The Department's MS4 Permit (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ) was adopted on September 19, 2012 and became effective on July 1, 2013. The permit has three basic requirements: 1. The Department must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see below); 2. The Department must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to effectively control storm water and non -storm water discharges; and 3. The Department storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) BMPs, to the Maximum Extent Practicable, and other measures as the SWRCB determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards. To comply with the permit, the Department developed the Statewide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP assigns responsibilities within the Department for implementing storm water management procedures and practices as well as training, public education and participation, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP describes the minimum procedures and practices the Department uses to reduce pollutants in storm water and non -storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the selection and implementation of BMPs. The project will be programmed to follow the guidelines and procedures outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff. Construction General Permit Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ), adopted on September 2, 2009, became effective on July 1, 2010. The permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of the General Construction Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-196 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff Permit. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop storm water pollution prevention plans; to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The 2009 Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels are determined during the planning and design phases, and are based on potential erosion and transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For example, a Risk Level (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows. For all projects subject to the permit, applicants are required to develop and implement an effective Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Department's Standard Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre. Section 401 Permitting Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the United States must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will be in compliance with state water quality standards. The most common federal permits triggering 401 Certification are CWA Section 404 permits issued by the USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before the USACE issues a 404 permit. In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project. As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the State Water Code (Porter -Cologne Act) that define activities, such as the inclusion of specific features, effluent limitations, monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges of a project. 2.2.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The primary source used in the preparation of this section is the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Water Quality Assessment Report, April 2015 (Caltrans 2015e). Surface Water Resources Regional Hydrology The project is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed (see Figure 2-24). Within the Santa Ana River Watershed, the Santa Ana River collects runoff from tributaries originating within the San Bernardino, San Gabriel, and San Gorgonio Mountain Ranges and converging at the Prado Flood Control Basin (Prado Dam). Prado Dam provides controlled releases that eventually drain to the Pacific Ocean. Water from the San Jacinto Mountains also enters the watershed via the San Jacinto River, which flows into Lake Elsinore and then into Temescal Wash when the lake levels are high. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-197 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff Runoff within the project limits discharges into the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit within the Santa Ana RWQCB's jurisdiction. Within this hydrologic unit, the project falls within the Lake Mathews and Middle Santa Ana River hydrologic areas and the following hydrological sub- areas, as shown in Figure 2-25: • Chino (Split) 801.21. • Temescal 801.25. • Bedford 801.32. Regional Water Quality In general, the quality of surface water and groundwater in the Santa Ana River Watershed becomes progressively poorer as water moves downstream. The highest quality water is typically associated with tributaries flowing from the surrounding mountains and groundwater recharged by those streams. Water quality is affected by a number of factors, including consumptive use, importation of water high in dissolved solids, runoff from urban and agricultural areas, and the recycling of water within the basin. Local Hydrology Storm water runoff from within the project limits is discharged and conveyed via adjacent natural and manmade depressed areas, lined and unlined channels, canyons, and/or existing storm drain systems. All channelized storm water from the project area is eventually discharged into the Santa Ana River —Reach 3, via several major and minor tributaries that intersect and/or exist alongside I-15, ultimately outletting to the Pacific Ocean. The major tributary within the project limits is Temescal Wash. Surface Water Quality The most important regional issue in the Santa Ana River Watershed is the degradation of water quality by nitrogen and total dissolved solids (TDS). Primary water quality concerns in the Middle Santa Ana River include TDS, total inorganic nitrogen levels, and contaminant plumes in groundwater; bacterial quality of surface waters; and impacts from concentrated animal -feeding operations. Section 303(d) Listed Waters Within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit, the Santa Ana River —Reach 3 and Temescal Creek —Reach 1 are receiving water bodies that are listed as impaired water bodies on the 2010 CWA Section 303(d) list. A summary of the hydrologic information, 303(d) listed water bodies and their associated pollutants of concern, TMDLs, and targeted design constituents (TDCs) are shown below in Table 2-50. A TDC is a pollutant that has been identified during Caltrans runoff characterization studies to be discharging with a load or concentration that commonly exceeds allowable standards and which is considered treatable by currently available Caltrans-approved treatment BMPs. It is a requirement of the Caltrans NPDES Permit to provide treatment of the Caltrans-identified TDCs. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-198 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Glendora San Dimas La Verne Diamond Bar r_ Villa Park LOS ANGELES San Antonio Heights COUNTY Pomona Yorba Linda Anaheim Orange Tustin Foothills Tustin Tustin Claremont Upland Montclair Montclair Los Serranos ORANGE Ontario COUNTY Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance Signage Limits Hydrological Sub -Area Counties Station rtola Hills Santa Ana River Hydrological Unit Hydrological Su6- 1-1 Areas ANGELES COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO ORANGE COUNTY Rancho Fontana Rialto Cucamonga7 Eastvale Temescal Corona 801.26 Jurupa Mira Valley Loma Home Gardens SA N BERN RDI COUNTY Bloomington Rubidoux Pedley IVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE Bedford 801.32 �+ Lake Elsinore Crestline, BERNAROINO Riverside COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY et\ San Bernardino Woodcrest Colton Highgrove N Figure 2-24 Hydrologic Units and Areas Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-200 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance Signage Limits Santa Ana River aSanta Ana River Hydrological Unit 1 Counties Hydrological Areas Colton -Rialto Lake Mathews Lower Santa Ana River Middle Santa Ana River San Bernardin❑ Mountain San Timote❑ Upper Santa Ana River Figure 2-25 Hydrologic Sub -Areas and Surface Waters Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-202 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff Table 2-50. 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Pollutants of Concern Jurisdictiona Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic Area Hydrologic Sub -Area# Water Body" Pollutants of Concernb SARWQCB Santa Ana River Lake Mathews Bedford 801.32 N/A Not listed as impaired Middle Santa Ana River Temescal 801.25 Temescal Creek — Reach 1a pH Chino (Split) 801.21 Santa Ana River— Reach 3° Copper° Lead Pathogensd Source: Caltrans n.d. a SARWQCB - Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. b 2010 303(d) Approved List (SARWQCB 2010). a Caltrans Targeted Design Constituent — TMDL needed. d Approved TMDL. A resolution to amend the RWQCB Basin Plan to include bacterial indicator TMDLs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Waterbodies was approved by the Santa Ana RWQCB on September 1, 2006, and the EPA on May 16, 2007 (Resolution No. RS-2005-001). This TMDL is applicable to Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River. In addition, a TMDL is currently under development for nutrients for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River. Aquatic Sites CWA jurisdictional resources within the biological study area total approximately 14.26 acres (51,914 linear feet) of non -wetland waters of the United States/waters of the State and 15.80 acres of wetland waters of the United States/waters of the State. Approximately 36.82 acres (85,484 linear feet) of unvegetated streambed, subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction, and 19.83 acres of CDFW jurisdictional riparian vegetation were identified. Additionally, approximately 8.79 acres (123,972 linear feet) of non - wetland WoS may be subject to regulation by the RWQCB under the Porter -Cologne Act (Caltrans 2014b). Groundwater Resources As designated in the Basin Plan, the project site is within the Chino North Groundwater Management Zone of the Upper Santa Ana River Basin and the Temescal and Bedford Groundwater Management Zones of the Middle Santa Ana River Basin. Groundwater basins were redesignated as Groundwater Management Zones by the Santa Ana RWQCB during the February 2008 update to the Basin Plan. The Chino Basin covers an area of about 235 square miles within the upper Santa Ana Watershed. A majority of the groundwater basin (70 percent) lies within San Bernardino County. The rest overlaps into Riverside County (20 percent) and Los Angeles County (10 percent). The Chino Basin is bounded by Cucamonga Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; the Temescal Basin to the south; Chino Hills and Puente Hills to the southwest; San Jose Hills, Pomona, and Claremont Basin on the northwest; and the Rialto/Colton Basins on the east. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-203 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff The Temescal Groundwater Management Zone underlies the southwestern part of the upper Santa Ana Valley. This groundwater management zone is bounded on the north by the Prado Basin Surface Water Management Zone, on the east by non-waterbearing crystalline rocks of the El Sobrante de San Jacinto Mountains and La Sierra Hills, on the west by the Santa Ana Mountains, and on the south by the Bedford Groundwater Management Zone. Dominant recharge to this groundwater reservoir is from percolation of precipitation on the valley floor and infiltration of stream flow within tributaries exiting the surrounding mountains and hills. The southern tip of the study area along I-15 is in the northern part of the Bedford Groundwater Management Zone. The Bedford Groundwater Management Zone is bounded by the Temescal Groundwater Management Zone on the north, the Santa Ana Mountains on the west, the El Sobrante de San Jacinto Mountains on the east, and Lee Lake on the south. The part of the study area in the Bedford Groundwater Management Zone consists of areas primarily for advanced signage only. Shallow groundwater is expected predominantly in the Santa Ana River Valley. Groundwater depths have been recorded by Riverside County within and/or near the project limits ranging from 0 to 235 feet below ground surface (bgs); however, groundwater was encountered by Caltrans at 578 feet bgs while drilling borings for bridge abutments on January 6, 2009, at the Santa Ana River bridge. This depth is consistent with the shallowest groundwater depth encountered during Caltrans drilling explorations on October 31, 1984. Groundwater Quality The State of California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program assesses the state's groundwater quality. The Upper Santa Ana Watershed groundwater contains both inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, total dissolved solids [TDS], iron, and manganese), and organic constituents (solvents, fumigants, volatile organic compounds [VOCs], and herbicides). Not all of these constituents have human -health benchmarks to determine health concerns. • Concentrations are considered high if they are greater than a benchmark. • For inorganic constituents, concentrations are moderate if they are greater than one-half of a benchmark. • For organic and special -interest constituents, concentrations are moderate if they are greater than one -tenth of a benchmark; this lower threshold was used because organic constituents generally are less prevalent and have smaller concentrations relative to benchmarks than inorganic constituents. • Low measurements include non -detections and values less than moderate concentrations. According to GAMA's Groundwater Study (USGS 2012), the groundwater quality in the Upper Santa Ana Watershed Study Unit consists of high concentrations of nitrites in about 25 percent of the primary aquifers, and moderate concentrations in about 25 percent of the primary aquifers. In the Upper Santa Ana Watershed, TDS were present at high concentrations (greater than the upper limit) in about five percent of the primary aquifers. About 25 percent of the primary aquifers had moderate TDS concentrations (between the recommended and upper limit). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-204 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff In the Upper Santa Ana Watershed and nearby San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys, high concentrations of organic constituents (greater than health -based thresholds) are present in nearly seven percent of the primary aquifers (USGS and SWRCB 2012). Solvents, including tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride, were detected at high concentrations in about three percent of the primary aquifers. 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), a fumigant, was detected at high concentrations in about four percent of the primary aquifers. 2.2.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary Surface Water Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increase in potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked, and have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into receiving waters. Construction activities as part of the project would disturb soil and increase the potential for soil erosion and suspended particles that can be generated from vehicles operating on a roadway. The DSAs are defined by Caltrans as being areas of exposed, erodible soil that are within the construction limits and that result from construction activity. The total DSA for the project is approximately 132 acres. Because the project's total DSA exceeds one acre, pursuant to the NPDES permit requirements, a SWPPP shall be prepared prior to construction to identify BMPs to be implemented during construction activities, as discussed in measure WR-1. The project is being designed to minimize potential for erosion through use of the following project design features: • Slopes would be disturbed only when necessary, minimizing cut and fill slopes, incorporating retaining walls to reduce steepness, avoiding areas that are particularly difficult to revegetate, making slopes as flat as possible, rounding slopes, and collecting concentrated flows in stabilized channels. • Standard erosion control practices would be implemented, such as placing rock slope protection at inlets and outlets of storm drain pipe and diverting runoff to stabilized swales and ditches. • Temporarily impacted areas would be revegetated to minimize soil erosion following construction activities. • Staging areas would be located in areas that would limit the areas of disturbance that would support their potential use as areas for placement/installation of BMPs. • Slope disturbance would be minimized by matching existing slope conditions, where practicable. New slopes would be 4:1 or flatter where feasible. Freeway roadbed runoff would be allowed to sheet flow over the side slopes, graded at 4:1 or flatter, to vegetated Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-205 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff swales and ditches at the toe of slopes. These swales would also be designed to direct flow to detention or infiltration devices for treatment to the maximum extent practicable. At the Santa Ana River bridges, dewatering may be necessary. Any dewatering requires the contractor to obtain a dewatering permit from the RWQCB, as discussed in measure WR-2, to ensure downstream discharge meets water quality requirements for sediments and chemicals. Construction methods such as properly scheduling activities within approved work windows, using existing access roads, preparing dewatering plans to minimize potential ground to surface water discharges, avoiding wetland disturbances, locating staging areas in upland areas away from the river bed, and ensuring that a qualified biologist oversees species relocation activities and dewatering operations would minimize water quality impacts at the river and throughout the project to the maximum extent practicable. During construction, the contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, as described in measure WR-1. The contractor would also be required to implement the General Waste Discharge Requirement Permit as described in measure WR-2. Implementation of measure WR-2 would ensure that no adverse effects on surface water quality would occur during construction. Accordingly, with conformance to the provisions in the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters, downstream hydrologic subareas —such as the Santa Ana River, Reach 3, and plant and animal species of concern —are not expected to be affected by pollutant transport and erosion of land and sedimentation within waterways and storm drains. Groundwater At the Santa Ana River bridges, dewatering may be necessary to create a temporary dry construction area for bridge construction. Dewatered groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids or other contaminants that could be introduced to surface waters. However, these groundwater dewatering activities would be considered temporary, and it is not anticipated that the volume of groundwater removed would be substantial. As specified in measure WR-2, prior to the commencement of any discharges of extracted groundwater waste, the contractor would be required to apply for coverage under a Santa Ana RWQCB groundwater dewatering permit (Order No. R8-2009-0003). Monitoring of dewatering discharges and adherence to effluent and receiving water limitations contained within the permit are required so that water quality of surface waters is ensured protection. With the implementation of measure WR-2, no direct or indirect temporary adverse groundwater quality impacts would occur during the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Drainages Approximately 0.14 acres of federal jurisdictional wetlands would be permanently impacted by the project. An additional approximately 8.48 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. Measure WR-3 requires that the appropriate regulatory permits be obtained prior to construction activities for impacts on jurisdictional areas. These include Section 401 Water Quality Certification, a Section 404 Permit, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Appropriate compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts and restoration of areas Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-206 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff temporarily impacted would be determined in consultation with the USACE, Santa Ana RWQCB, and CDFW via the regulatory permitting process. With the implementation of measure WR-3 and regulatory permit conditions, no direct or indirect temporary adverse impacts on drainages would result during the construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Permanent Surface Water The existing impervious surface area of I-15 within the project corridor covers approximately 278 acres. Once the project construction is completed, the project would add an additional 79 acres of impervious surface area, for a combined total of 357 acres of impervious surface area within the project improvement limits of I-15 (an increase of approximately 35 percent). An increase in impervious area would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which would more effectively transport pollutants to receiving waters. Pollutants of concern during operation of the project include suspended solids/sediments, nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. Increases in impervious area can also cause a decrease in infiltration, can increase the volume of runoff during a storm event, and can lead to changes in receiving water substrate from downstream erosion and accretion. However, the project would use permanent treatment BMPs, including infiltration, non - engineered BMPs, and detention devices to address pollutants of concern during operation of the roadway facility. The BMPs selected would provide treatment of the net new impervious area to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the 2012 Project Planning and Design Guide. Collectively, the proposed BMPs would provide a treatment percentage of approximately 97 percent of the net new impervious area. In addition, treatment of 40 percent of the water volume from the existing impervious pavement area that currently drains to the center median area is required, as agreed to among the Santa Ana RWQCB, RCTC, and Caltrans. Treatment BMPs As part of the project design, the following BMPs would be potentially implemented to target pollutants of concern from the project and reduce impacts on water quality during project operation, where appropriate. The treatment BMPs are measures designed to remove pollutants from storm water runoff prior to discharging to receiving waters. The feasible BMPs for the project include infiltration devices, non -engineered BMPs, and detention devices. Treatment BMPs such as these are excellent treatment methods that provide various levels of treatment. The final determination of the treatment BMPs to be implemented will be determined during the final design phase of the project. However, the BMPs that are implemented would provide treatment of the net new pervious area to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the 2012 Project Planning and Design Guide. Infiltration Devices An infiltration device is designed to remove pollutants from surface discharges by capturing the water runoff and infiltrating it directly to the soil rather than discharging to receiving waters. Two existing infiltration devices are already located in the project area within the southeast and southwest quadrants of the State Route 60 (SR-60)/I-15 interchange; these devices will be used to treat the project's roadway runoff in this area. These devices have excess capacity and have Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-207 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff been evaluated to confirm their capacity would accommodate the water runoff volume from the project and the I-15 roadway rehabilitation project. Detention Devices A detention device is a permanent device formed by excavating and/or constructing an embankment so that runoff is temporarily detained under quiescent conditions, allowing sediment and particulates to settle out before the runoff is discharged. The required water quality design volume for the I-15 Express Lane Project was calculated based on methodology described in the Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide. The runoff volume can be accommodated by the eight detention basins in the project vicinity that either already exist or would be constructed before the I-15 express lanes open to traffic. Two detention basins are existing basins within the loop ramps of the Cantu Galleano Ranch Road/I-15 interchange. An additional two detention basins would be constructed within the future Cajalco Road/I-15 Interchange Project ramps. The Cajalco Road Interchange Project is scheduled for construction prior to I-15 Express Lanes Project construction, so these basins are considered existing for purposes of the I-15 Express Lanes Project. Four additional detention basins would be constructed within the future Limonite Avenue Interchange Project ramps for sediment and particulate settlement. Construction of the Limonite Interchange Project is anticipated to begin in 2017 and be completed before the I-15 express lanes open to traffic; these basins are also considered existing for purposes of the project. Collectively, the eight existing and planned detention basins have the capacity to treat the roadway runoff, as required, from the I-15 Express Lanes Project. Once the project is completed, all of the permanent BMPs that were planned, designed, and implemented during the previous phases of the project would treat the storm water runoff generated on the site to the maximum extent practicable during facility operations. In addition, all channel improvements would have appropriate inlet or outlet energy dissipation and/or stabilization measures to minimize erosion. These BMPs would be implemented to target pollutants of concern from the project and reduce impacts on water quality during operation of the project. Furthermore, by using Caltrans-approved BMPs, adverse effects to the identified beneficial uses would be kept to a minimum. In an effort to raise public awareness to the sensitive nature of all receiving water bodies, storm drain inlets adjacent to sidewalks with pedestrian access would be stenciled with the following statement "No Dumping — This Drains to Ocean." Stenciling efforts would be coordinated with the District Maintenance Storm Water Coordinator during the plan, specification, and estimate phase. Therefore, no direct or indirect adverse long-term impacts on surface water quality would occur as a result of the project. Groundwater The project would increase impervious surface areas on site, which can decrease infiltration. According to Western Municipal Water District, no groundwater recharge facilities are located in the project area. Furthermore, by the time water is infiltrated, it has been treated. Additionally, soils throughout most of the project corridor have very low infiltration rates. Because infiltration is very low in existing conditions, operation of the roadway would not substantially decrease infiltration (Caltrans 2015e). In addition, operation of the project would not require long-term groundwater extraction. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-208 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, and direct or indirect adverse long- term impacts on groundwater would not occur as a result of the project. Drainages The project improvements would increase storm runoff caused by an increase in impervious surface area, which would increase the volume of flow and potentially increase the velocity of some on -site systems within the project limits; however, implementation of design measures and standard erosion control practices would minimize the effects of downstream flow. In addition, the project includes infiltration and detention devices that would provide flow duration control functions, as needed. Within the graded areas between the ramps and the freeway, select locations would use infiltration and detention devices to provide permanent storm water treatment (see Treatment BMPs above). The installation of asphalt concrete dikes and asphalt concrete overside drains to capture and convey freeway drainage would also be incorporated into the project design. The widening of the bridges at the Santa Ana River would require capturing deck flow in order to avoid runoff directly discharging into the Santa Ana River. As part of the project, runoff from these bridges would be captured via storm drain inlets and conveyed via storm drain conduits. The runoff captured via storm drain inlets would be conveyed northbound through utility openings, then conveyed to the proposed infiltration swale located northeast of the Santa Ana River bridges. Operation of the project is subject to the requirements of the Caltrans NPDES Permit, as described in measure WR-4. Caltrans must: (1) comply with the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit and any subsequent permit: (2) consider approved BMPs to treat the runoff from the project site; and (3) install these BMPs where feasible for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). With the implementation of measure WR-4, no direct or indirect permanent impacts on long-term drainage water quality would occur. In conclusion, the short-term (construction) and long-term (operations) direct and indirect effects related to water quality are not considered adverse with implementation of measures WR-1 though WR-4 below. No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would not increase impervious area or change land use in the I-15 project area. Therefore, drainages and surface runoff would remain consistent with current conditions, and roadway runoff in this area would remain unchanged and untreated. This alternative would not result in an increase in long-term pollutant loading. However, the No -Build Alternative does not preclude the construction of other future improvements or general maintenance to improve the operation of the facility or incorporate drainage enhancements. Under the No -Build Alternative, no improvements to the I-15 would be made other than routine maintenance. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-209 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 2.2.2.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, which are standard practice on all Caltrans projects, would be implemented with the project and would minimize or avoid impacts related to water quality and stormwater. WR-1 WR-2 WR-3 WR-4 Comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Order No. 2009 0009 DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012 0006 DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), and any subsequent permit, as they relate to construction activities for the project. This shall include submission of the permit registration documents, including a Notice Of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and signed certification statement to SWRCB at least 14 days prior to the start of construction activity. The SWPPP shall 1) meet the requirements of the Construction General Permit and identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; 2) identify non -storm water discharges; and 3) identify, implement, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. The BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall be implemented during the project construction. A Notice of Termination shall be submitted to SWRCB upon completion of construction and the stabilization of the site. Comply with the provisions of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001, as they relate to discharge of non -storm water dewatering wastes for the project. This shall include submitting to the Santa Ana RWQCB an NOI at least 60 days prior to the start of construction, and notification of discharge at least five days prior to any planned discharges. Comply with the provisions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Santa Ana RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from the USACE, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW for impacts on jurisdictional areas. These regulatory permits shall be obtained prior to impacts within identified jurisdictional areas. Comply with the provisions of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), effective July 1, 2013 (known as the Caltrans MS4 permit). Project -specific BMPs and any applicable hydromodification features shall be incorporated into final design. The BMPs shall be properly designed and maintained to target pollutants of concern and reduce runoff from the project site. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-210 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography 2.2.3 Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography 2.2.3.1 REGULATORY SETTING For geologic and topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects "outstanding examples of major geological features." Topographic and geologic features are also protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section also discusses geology, soils, and seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit of structures. The Department's Office of Earthquake Engineering is responsible for assessing the seismic hazard for Department projects. Structures are designed using the Department's Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). The SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for highway bridges designed in California. A bridge's category and classification will determine its seismic performance level and which methods are used for estimating the seismic demands and structural capabilities. For more information, please see the Department's Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Design Criteria. National Natural Landmarks Program The National Natural Landmarks Program was established in 1962 under authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Administered by the National Park Service, the National Natural Landmarks Program lists sites that represent the nation's "best" examples of various types of biological communities or geologic features (meaning that they are in good condition and effectively illustrate the specific character of a certain type of resource) in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. At present, the registry includes 587 sites. The goals of the National Natural Landmarks Program are: • to encourage the preservation of sites that illustrate the nation's geological and ecological character; • to enhance the scientific and educational value of the sites preserved; and • to strengthen public appreciation of natural history and foster increased concern for the conservation of the nation's natural heritage. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act California's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act; Public Resources Code Section 2621 et seq.), originally enacted in 1972 as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994, is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and strictly regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (referred to as earthquake fault zones). It defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as active, and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to earthquake fault zones. It also encourages and regulates seismic retrofits of some types of structures. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-211 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code Section 2690-2699.6) is intended to avoid or reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake - related hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction,3 and seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act: the state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards; and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped seismic hazard zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits for sites within seismic hazard zones until appropriate site -specific geologic and/or geotechnical investigations have been carried out and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 The principal piece of legislation addressing mineral resources in California is the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Public Resources Code Section 2710-2719), which was enacted in response to land use conflicts between urban growth and essential mineral production. The stated purpose of this act is to provide a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy that will encourage the production and conservation of mineral resources while ensuring that adverse environmental effects of mining are prevented or minimized; that mined lands are reclaimed and residual hazards to public health and safety are eliminated; and that consideration is given to recreation, watershed, wildlife, aesthetics, and other related values. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 provides for the evaluation of an area's mineral resources using a system of mineral resource zone classifications that reflect the known or inferred presence and significance of a given mineral resource. 2.2.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The primary source used in the preparation of this section is the draft Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report, November 2014 (Caltrans 2014i). Topography The project is located in a Valley Lowland that consists of a combination of low and high points typical of this area. The project limits are within the Chino Basin and the Temescal Basin, which lie adjacent to the Santa Ana Mountains. Mountain ranges —including the Santa Ana Mountains, Estelle Mountain, and Norco Hills —influence the topography of the region by creating high elevation points along the project alignment. In general, the area surrounding the project limits slopes toward the Santa Ana River. Drainage in this area flows through the Santa Ana River at the northern project limits and north of SR-91, and through the Temescal Wash at the southern project limits, which flows toward the Prado Flood Control Basin northwest of the project limits. 3 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil are reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapidly applied loading. Liquefaction and related types of ground failure are of greatest concern in areas where well -sorted sandy unconsolidated sediments are present in the subsurface and the water table is comparatively shallow. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-212 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography Bedford Wash, which flows west to east is located near the Cajalco Road undercrossing (UC) bridge (bridge number 56-0539) and contributes to the drainage at the southern end of the project limits. Regional and Local Geology The project is located in the northern section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, which encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles south from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin to the southern tip of Baja California, Mexico. This province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, this province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The northeast part of the Santa Ana Mountains contains sedimentary bedrock units of the Cretaceous to Tertiary age that overlay the Jurassic -age bedrock unit of the Bedford Canyon Formation. Bedrock types encountered in this area include igneous rock such as gabbro, granodiorite, and tonalite. Other types of rocks present are sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, mudstone, shale, and conglomerates. Soil Conditions Soils within the project area include artificial fill (af), young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf), alluvial wash deposits (Qw, Qyw, Qow), alluvial valley deposits (Qya, Qoa, Qvoa), old and very old alluvial fan deposits (Qof, Qvof), young eolian and dune deposits (Qye), granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages (gr), and fine- to coarse -grained rocks (Tsh, Qss, and Tss). Geologic Hazards Landslides The California Geologic Survey has not yet mapped landslide hazard zones for the areas located within the project limits. The project alignment is on a relatively flat area with sporadic slopes on the east side of I-15 in the cities of Corona and Norco. These steep slope cuts in igneous and granitic rocks are expected to be stable; however, future erosion could trigger instability. Land Subsidence Land subsidence is a process characterized by downward displacement of surface material caused by natural phenomena such as removal of underground fluids, natural consolidation, or dissolution of underground minerals, or by human -made phenomena such as underground mining. Based on the absence of planned large-scale extractions of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy within the project limits, the potential for ground subsidence is considered low. Seismicity and Fault Rupture As shown in Figure 2-26, the project is within a seismically active region and would be subject to seismically related geological hazards. No known active or potentially active faults have been mapped along the project limits, and the project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the project is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake along one of several major active or potentially active faults in southern California. The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub -parallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults are considered active. The San Jacinto and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located east of the project limits, and the Elsinore Fault Zone, which includes sections of the Temecula, Chino, Glen Ivy, and the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-213 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography Whittier faults, lies northwest of the project limits, trending northwest to southeast in direction. The Elsinore Fault Zone lies at the base of the Santa Ana Mountains and separates two major structural blocks of the northern Peninsular Ranges. East of the fault zone is the Perris Block and west is the Santa Ana Mountains Block. Other faults that have considerable effect are the Sierra Madre and Cucamonga faults north of the project area. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right -lateral, strike -slip movement. Cut and Fill Slopes Cut and fill slopes are frequently constructed in roadway projects. Where new cut slopes are anticipated for the proposed improvements, the proper design and analysis would be required. Typically finish -cut slopes in alluvium and/or existing soils should be graded no steeper than 2H:1 V (horizontal:vertical). Existing cuts in granitic and other igneous rock would not likely have to be cut back, but should be geotechnically evaluated where changes in cut slope geometry are proposed. New fill slopes would be constructed for the widening of the I-15 in Corona south of SR-91. Collapsible and Expansive Soils Collapsible soils are soils that undergo settlement upon wetting, even without the application of additional loads. Typical collapsible soils are low in plasticity and have relatively low moisture contents and densities. These soils are distributed throughout the southwestern United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and loess (wind-blown sediment) deposits. Near -surface sandy soils that may be present in some areas should be further evaluated during site -specific geotechnical investigation and, if present, may be mitigated by removal and replacement with compacted soils. Expansive soils are generally plastic clays that can undergo a substantial increase in volume with increase in moisture content and a substantial decrease in volume with a decrease in moisture content. Expansive soils can cause uplift pressures that can lead to structural damage. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore -water pressure during ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low -density) to medium dense, saturated, fine- to medium -grained cohesion -less soils, where the groundwater level is shallow (typically within 50 feet bgs), and sustained ground shaking is anticipated. Effects of liquefaction can include sand boils, excessive displacements, bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading. The Santa Ana River bridge has been reported with the highest levels of liquefaction potential ("very high"), followed by portions of the City of Norco where alluvial deposits exist that have been labeled as "high." Other areas such as the northern portion of the City of Corona are categorized as to "moderate to low" in terms of liquefaction potential, while the southern portion of the City of Corona is predominantly categorized as "low to very low." Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-214 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project OF EAST VALE Ilfll•1»l;� .. �r LOS ANGELESCOUNTY r f f•1 lillft_ SAN BERNARDINOCOUNTY RIVERSIDECOUNTY 5. ORANGECOUNTY CITY OF RIVERSIDE 11°4 t1. Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance Signage Limits Holocene Fault Pre -Quaternary Fault (<11,000 years) {>1.6 million years} Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. 0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8,000 Feet Figure 2-26 Faults, Sheet 1 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-216 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project --JJURUPA1.1 HI)P%i r �S tsxzso.-t CITY OF EASTVA'LE LOS ANGELESCOUNTY r". trit RIVERSIDECOUNTY �. 11 \‘ORANGECOUNTY CITY OF JEW PA VAWLEY lurupa Valley Sl.O V ER AVE CITY.9F - RIVERSIOE Project Lane Improvement Limits Advance Signage Limits Holocene Fault Pre -Quaternary Fault (<11,000 years) (>1.6 million years) Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Feet Figure 2-26 Faults, Sheet 2 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-218 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography Seiches and Tsunamis Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the absence of enclosed bodies of water near the project limits and a review of the California Geological Society Tsunami Inundation Map, seiche and tsunami risks at the site are considered negligible. 2.2.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary During construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), excavated soil would be exposed; increasing the potential for soil erosion. Additionally, during a storm event unprotected soils including slopes would be subject to erosion. Short-term impacts related to construction activities would occur along the project limits due to grading and construction of cut and fill slopes. Construction activities may also temporarily disturb soil outside the facility footprint, and within the project right of way, primarily in work areas, heavy equipment traffic areas, and material laydown areas. The temporary effects due to soil erosion within the proposed improvements are discussed in Section 2.2.2, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff. Erosion potential would be addressed through the implementation of erosion control BMPs in the SWPPP. With implementation of measures WR-1 through WR-4 (see Section 2.2.2), no short-term direct or indirect adverse impacts related to soil compaction or erosion would occur during construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Permanent The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is not anticipated to adversely impact geologic or topographic conditions or be impacted by fault rupture within the project limits The primary geologic and geotechnical constraints associated with the design and construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) are landslides, seismic shaking, and liquefaction. Landslides The topography along the project alignment is relatively flat with sporadic slopes on the east side of I-15 in the cities of Corona and Norco. The majority of the natural slopes within the project alignment are generally considered stable. Other areas where landslide potential exists include the south embankment of the Santa Ana River bridge. However, during the design phase of the project alignment, areas that are found to contain weak materials would be investigated and remedial grading options would be developed to stabilize materials that are susceptible to seismic landslide movement. These recommendations would be summarized in a Final Geotechnical Design Report. With these standard measures, no direct or indirect adverse long- term impacts from landslides would occur as a result of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Seismic Shaking As stated previously, the project limits are within an active seismic region. Design and construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) following Caltrans' current highway Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-219 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography and structure seismic design standards would minimize potential impacts. In addition, the project improvements are required to comply with the IBC (International Code Council 2012), Caltrans Standards, and state, county, and city regulations related to seismic ground shaking. Field studies would occur during the PS&E phase that would confirm the proposed designed improvements meet seismic safety standards, or would recommend engineering techniques to ensure compliance with IBC (2012), Caltrans Standards, and state, county, and city regulations. With implementation of these standard measures, no direct or indirect adverse long-term impacts on seismic shaking would occur as a result of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Liquefaction As discussed previously, the project area is located within liquefiable zones. The potential for liquefaction on most of the project site is considered to be "low" with the exceptions of the areas near the Santa Ana River bridge, Temescal Wash bridge, El Cerrito Road bridge, Sixth Street UC, and Sixth Street bridge, where liquefaction potential ranges from "moderate" to "high." Further detailed geotechnical investigation of these areas to gather information on site -specific conditions would occur during the PS&E phase to inform final design. The project would follow Caltrans' latest design requirements to minimize any potential effects related to liquefaction and seismically induced settlement. With implementation of these standard measures, no direct or indirect adverse long-term impacts would occur as a result of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). No -Build Alternative Hazards associated with seismic activity would still exist under the No -Build Alternative. The No -Build Alternative would not result in any impacts on geology, soils, seismicity, or topography. 2.2.3.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to Caltrans' standard design and construction practices, which are required on all State Highway System projects, impacts related to geology, soils, seismicity, and topography would be avoided or minimized. No additional measures are required. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-220 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology 2.2.4 Paleontology 2.2.4.1 REGULATORY SETTING Paleontology is a natural science focused on the study of ancient animal and plant life as it is preserved in the geologic record as fossils. A number of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources, their treatment, and funding for mitigation as a part of federally authorized projects. • 23 United States Code (USC) 1.9(a) requires that the use of federal -aid funds must be in conformity with federal and state law. • 23 United States Code (USC) 305 authorizes the appropriation and use of federal highway funds for paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of any state, in compliance with 16 USC 431-433 and state law. Under California law, paleontological resources are protected by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 5097.5 of the California Public Code protects historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological sites, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature that is situated on land owned by, or in the jurisdiction of, the State of California, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. 2.2.4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The primary source used in the preparation of this section is the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Combined Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER), dated September 2014 (Caltrans 2014j). Scientific literature and records reviews and sensitivity assessment were conducted in April 2011 by the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) Department of PaleoServices in order to determine the likelihood of important paleontological resources within the project area being uncovered during project activities (SDNHM 2014). The searches were conducted by a staff paleontologist under the direction of the Director at the SDNHM. In addition to searches of records from the Western Science Center (WSC), the Raymond Alf Museum (RAM) in Claremont, and the SDNHM, the assessment of paleontological resource potential relied on the results of previous record searches as summarized in PIR/PER reports written for other transportation projects along the I-15 corridor in Riverside County, including the Mid -County Parkway Project, Riverside County, California (Caltrans 2007) and the I-15/Cajalco Road Interchange Improvement project (Caltrans 2008). Record search data summarized in these reports also utilized the records of the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) and the Natural History Museum, Los Angeles County (LACM). A vehicular ("windshield") field survey was conducted on April 18, 2011, along the project right of way to verify the geology summarized in published reports and geological maps. The results of the survey agreed with the information that was previously published. A total of three stops Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-221 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology were made along northbound I-15 travelling north from the City of Lake Elsinore. No fossils were observed during any of the stops. The scientific literature review and vehicular field survey have determined that the project alignment is underlain by fossil -bearing sedimentary rocks of Cenozoic age (approximately 60 million to 10,000 years old). Further, several of these sedimentary rock units possess a high paleontological resource potential. These rock units with a high resource potential are, from oldest to youngest, the Silverado Formation, undifferentiated Sespe and Vaqueros Formations, Topanga Formation, Puente Formation, unnamed sandstone of Norco area, unnamed late Cenozoic sedimentary rocks of Norco area, unnamed Quaternary older fan deposits, unnamed Quaternary very old alluvium, and unnamed young eolian deposits. A Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Map (Figure 2-27), shows the paleontological potential/sensitivity along the entire study area. A brief discussion of these rock units is presented below: • The Silverado Formation is located in several places along the alignment. It was observed during the vehicular survey between Stations C1785+00 and C1985+00 (refer to station locations on Figure 1-4). Fossil plant material was collected from the Silverado Formation three quarters of a mile south-southeast of the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange. The Silverado Formation is assigned a high paleontological resource potential due to production of scientifically significant collections of marine invertebrate and plant fossils. • The undifferentiated Vaqueros and Sespe Formations were identified between stations C 1818+00 and C 1920+00, as well as C 1870+00 and C 1875+00. The undifferentiated unit is assigned a high paleontological resource potential due to production of scientifically significant assemblages of marine and non -marine invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. • The Topanga Formation is located along four areas of the project alignment, two southern exposures between Stations C 1855+00 and C 1880+00 and two northern exposures between C 1960+00 and C2015+00. Three localities were identified in the Topanga Formation east of I-15 between Liberty Avenue in the south and El Cerrito Road in the north, which included fossil diatoms, foraminiferans, marine mollusks, and whales. The Topanga Formation has yielded scientifically significant collections of invertebrate, vertebrate, and plant fossils. As such, it has a high paleontological resource potential. • The Puente Formation is exposed within the project alignment near C2027+00 and C2032+00. Fossil diatoms and foraminiferans were collected from this formation west of I- 15 between Boyd Avenue in the south and Lincoln Avenue in the north. It has a high paleontological resource potential because it has yielded scientifically significant collections of invertebrate, vertebrate, and plant fossils. • The Sandstone rock unit located south of the City of Norco falls along discontinuous sections of the project alignment between Stations C2197+00 and C2201+00, C2211+00 and C2220+00. This rock unit has documented occurrences of marine invertebrate fossils of a late Pliocene age and a marine depositional origin, which allows for a high paleontological resource potential. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-222 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project TAIMMTelEalU 1WEA1 Ill AreTiFYCMT:11:1:T.T.R..11S1T1 VizM:XIMTY7Millni1W--11=:Ti•7eSLli-LIT:11771:107. M takIelMEYTiM #R ,/ J,arupe Riverside Orange County Bernar�di vouv County 4 ►- Cs` =F I1 Riverside County Jurupa Legend PM36.8/54.4 n State Right -of -Way ® 200 ft Buffer Fossil Potential High Low Zero Limonite Miles Source: ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 2-27 Index Summary Paleontological Sensitivity Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-224 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project MMT-elM1==n1: \ \ \ft t t Project Limits (Lane Improvement Limits) South RIV-15 PM 36.8 0.5 Miles Source: ESRI World Imagery (2010) 1 N A Legend n State Right -of -Way ® 200 ft Buffer Fossil Potential High Low Zero Figure 2-27 - Sheet 1 Summary Paleontological Sensitivity Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-226 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project ilf,Z7faiSMEZEi i :o1G7f.TdCNf.91971�iS�17W �7iL7YYc;Li711 .FTT..RA1 1R11�[Ti7:i 1R-MMU M.111 MT�9MM,2--1SGiil`a;7 37:16Mi Project Limits (Lane Improvement Limits) North RIV-15 PM 51.4 Miles Source: ESRI World Imagery (2010) i Figure 2-27 - Sheet 2 Summary Paleontological Sensitivity Map Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-228 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology • The Late Cenozoic sedimentary rocks also occur south of the City of Norco between Stations C2250+00 and C2263+00, C2269+00 and C2285+00; as well as along the southbound entrance/exit ramps between Stations C2307+00 and C2316+00. The geological age of the Late Cenozoic sediments suggests a high paleontological resource potential. • Older Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits occur along the right of way between Stations C2498+00 and C2503+00. Old alluvial fan deposits are also located south of the City of Norco, along the area of potential effects. The Older Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits have yielded an abundance of scientifically significant fossils of land mammals and are assigned a high paleontological resource potential. • The Younger Pleistocene Surficial Deposits occur in discontinuous pockets around the Santa Ana River and Temescal Wash. The younger surficial deposits (alluvial valley, axial channel, and alluvial fan and wash deposits) are assigned a low paleontological resource potential because of the young age of these types of sediments. However, the eolian deposits at the northern end of the project alignment are assigned a high resource potential due to the significant occurrences of large and small fossil terrestrial mammals identified during institutional records searches. 2.2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary There are no temporary impacts on paleontological resources. Any impacts on such resources during the construction period are considered permanent impacts and are discussed under the permanent impacts heading below. Permanent The literature, records search, and vehicular survey indicate that the project could have the potential to adversely impact several important nonrenewable highly sensitive paleontological resources along the project alignment. Although there are several areas of the project alignment mapped as underlain by these geological rock units, the majority of these sections, with the exception of one, were buried beneath thick deposits of engineered fill during the original construction of I-15. This includes the median areas, where the majority of proposed earthwork for the project would occur. The road improvements proposed along these segments would not extend deep enough to impact the paleontological resources. However, proposed earthwork between 68th Street and Limonite Avenue (Stations C2500+00 and C2540+00) would include proposed shoulder excavation on the northbound side of I-15 where construction of access structures for the express lanes would likely cut into previously undisturbed and paleontologically sensitive sedimentary rock units with high paleontological resource potential/sensitivity. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources in these areas may occur during project construction. In order to minimize these impacts, a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP), as described in measure PALEO-1 below, would be prepared by a qualified paleontologist to address this identified area of potential sensitivity. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, no effects on paleontological resources would occur. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-229 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Paleontology 2.2.4.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following measure would be implemented with the project and would minimize or avoid impacts related to paleontological resources. PALEO-1: Grading, excavation, and other surface and subsurface excavation in defined project have the potential to affect nonrenewable paleontological resources. A Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) shall be prepared during final project design by a qualified paleontologist. The PMP will detail all the measures to be implemented in the event of paleontological discoveries. The PMP shall include, at a minimum, the following elements. a) Required 1-hour preconstruction paleontological awareness training for earthmoving personnel, including documentation of training, such as sign -in sheets, and hardhat stickers, to establish communications protocols between construction personnel and the principal paleontologist. b) There will be a signed repository agreement with an appropriate repository that meets Caltrans requirements and is approved by Caltrans. c) Monitoring, by a principal paleontologist, of Pleistocene older alluvium during excavation. d) Field and laboratory methods that meet the curation requirements of the appropriate repository will be implemented for monitoring, reporting, collection, and curation of collected specimens. Curation requirements are available for public review at the appropriate repository. e) All elements of the PMP will follow the PMP Format published in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (Caltrans 2003). f) A Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR) discussing findings and analysis will be prepared by a principal paleontologist upon completion of project earthmoving. The report will be included in the environmental project file and also submitted to the curation facility. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-230 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hazardous Waste/Materials 2.2.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials 2.2.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING Hazardous materials, including hazardous substances and wastes, are regulated by many state and federal laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous materials, substances, and waste, and also the investigation and mitigation of waste releases, air and water quality, human health and land use. The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as "Superfund," is to identify and clean up abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for "cradle to grave" regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include: • Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992 • Clean Water Act • Clean Air Act • Safe Drinking Water Act • Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) • Atomic Energy Act • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order (EO) 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved. California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the CA Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA in the state. California law also addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act also restricts disposal of wastes and requires clean up of wastes that are below hazardous waste concentrations but could impact ground and surface water quality. California regulations that address waste management and prevention and clean up contamination include Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, Title 23 Waters, and Title 27 Environmental Protection. Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-231 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hazardous Waste/Materials 2.2.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Environmental Records Review The primary sources used in the preparation of this section are the draft Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Initial Site Assessment (ISA), December 2014 (Caltrans 2014k), the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Aerially Deposited Lead Survey, August 2014 (Caltrans 20141), and the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint Materials Survey Report, August 2014 (Caltrans 2014m). The ISA was prepared for the project in order to identify recognized and potentially recognized environmental conditions (RECs) within and adjacent to the project site. As part of the ISA, a search of selected government databases was conducted using the Environmental Data Resources® DataMapTM Environmental At1asTM database report (EDR report) system. The ISA identified hazardous wastes and materials within 0.50 mile of the project area; however, no facilities were identified within the I-15 right of way or within a distance to pose an environmental concern. The database review was also supplemented with online databases such as the Geotracker database with the SWRCB and the Envirostor database with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). This information has been added to the records column. Historical Review A review of historical data dating back to 1938 indicates that the project area was previously primarily vacant, agricultural, and residential land. Site Reconnaissance A site reconnaissance of the project study area was conducted on July 1, 2014. The site reconnaissance consisted of the observation and documentation of existing site conditions from the existing public right of way, and the nature of the neighboring property development within 0.25 mile of the project area. The following were observed within the study area: • An area approximately 55 feet wide and 3,825 feet long of discolored and stained soil was observed, extending from the Limonite Avenue overcrossing to the 68th Street overcrossing in the unpaved median. • Yellow striping paint was observed on the subject properties near the median on the northbound and southbound sides of I-15 and on the bridges crossing I-15. • Asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) are present within the bridge structures. Aerially Deposited Lead Because the project area is a historical and existing transportation corridor, the potential for historical soil impacts from Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) exists. An ADL Survey was conducted on the project area between June 24 and July 28, 2009, and March 11 and May 4, 2010. In August 2014 an updated ADL survey was completed based on the current project limits (Caltrans 20141). A total of 674 soil borings were advanced, and 2,733 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-232 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hazardous Waste/Materials primary soil samples and 245 duplicate samples were collected at approximately 600-foot intervals on the median, shoulders, and ramps to investigate the presence of ADL. Based on the ADL Survey data and statistical analysis, tested soil does not represent substantial environmental or health hazards and, according to the DTSC variance issued to Caltrans, can be classified as soil type X, non -hazardous, and can be reused on site. 2.2.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary The project does not involve the acquisition of new right of way and therefore would not affect any hazardous materials sites. One area of staining was identified in the project area unpaved median extending from the Limonite Avenue overcrossing to the 68th Street overcrossing. The soil will be sampled during the final design phase (measure HW-3). According to the ISA, there are no known or suspected hazardous material sources, such as underground fuel storage tanks, located within the project area; therefore, there is a relatively low potential that contaminants from offsite properties have migrated to the subject site and adversely affected the underlying soil and/or groundwater. Based on the ADL Survey data and statistical analysis, tested soil does not represent substantial environmental or health hazards and, according to the DTSC variance issued to Caltrans, can be classified as soil type X, non -hazardous, and can be reused on site (measure HW-1). Per the variance, the DTSC would be notified of the project, and a Lead Compliance Plan would be required for worker safety. An ACM and LBP survey of the bridge structures that may be modified by this project was conducted (Caltrans 2014m). The following bridges were studied: • Riverside Avenue UC (#56 0693L/R). • Santa Ana River Bridge (#56 0536L/R). • 3rd Street UC (#56 0668L/R). • 2nd Street UC (#56 0667L/R). • Corona Avenue UC (#56 0697L/R). • Parkridge Avenue UC (#56 0673L/R). • 15/91 Separation (#56 0501L/R). • East Corona OH (RR) (#56 0495L/R). • East 6th Street UC (#56 0494L/R). • Temescal Wash Bridge (#56 0499L/R). • El Cerrito Road UC (#56 0558L/R). Based on the results of the survey it was determined that ACM and LBP are present in some of the bridge structures associated with the project. Abatement of identified ACMs and LBP prior Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-233 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hazardous Waste/Materials to renovation of the bridge structures would also be required in order to minimize potential impacts (see measure HW-4). Roadway striping would be removed as part of the project. Yellow paints more than three years old exceed hazardous waste criteria under CCR Title 22 and require disposal at a Class I disposal site. Because the traffic striping on I-15 is likely older than three years, elevated lead concentrations within the yellow striping paint along the freeway may be present. Exposure to airborne contaminants from lead -based paint that could be present in the roadway striping could affect safety and health if not properly handled and disposed of during striping removal. Sampling and analysis of yellow striping would be performed in accordance with Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (Caltrans 2006) in order to ensure potential impacts are minimized (measure HW-5). During project construction, hazardous materials associated with demolition and replacement of existing structures could be accidently released. These activities require the use of construction equipment, which could spill gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, or other fluids during normal usage or refilling. Contractors are required to handle hazardous materials in accordance with applicable laws, including health and safety requirements; therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant with implementation of these requirements. Permanent Following construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), operations are not expected to result in the creation of any new health hazards or expose people to potential new health hazards related to hazardous materials/waste because the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) involves improvements to an existing highway only, and the storage of toxic materials or chemicals is not a proposed component of the project. Some vehicles using the express lanes may contain materials deemed hazardous; however, the hazards associated with vehicular transport of hazardous waste are regulated under existing programs and would not be affected by the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Following implementation of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), project operations are not expected to result in the creation of health hazards or to expose people to potential health hazards because the project is for roadway improvements only. There are several schools within 0.50 mile of the project site (see Table 2-14). The following schools are within 0.25 mile of the project site: Louis VanderMolen Fundamental Elementary School, Norco Headstart, Little Rascals Pre-school, Olive Branch Christian Academy, Temescal Valley Elementary, El Cerrito Middle School, and ITT Technical Institute. Project operations are not expected to result in the creation of new health hazards or expose people to potential new health hazards because the project consists of improvements to an existing highway only, and the storage of toxic materials or chemicals is not a proposed component of the project. The project is located east of and within two miles of the Corona Municipal Airport and the Ontario International Airport; however, the project is not within the Corona Municipal Airport Influenced Area (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2014). No adverse effects under NEPA or significant impacts under CEQA would occur. According to the Riverside County Land Information System, the project site is not within or adjacent to a high fire hazard area. The Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-234 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Hazardous Waste/Materials increase the exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, no improvements would be implemented and no effects involving hazardous materials would occur. 2.2.5.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be implemented with the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) and would minimize or avoid impacts related to hazardous wastes/materials. HW-1: HW-2: HW-3: A Lead Compliance Plan will be prepared by the contractor to ensure worker safety. During construction, unknown hazardous materials may be encountered, or materials could be accidently spilled. Best Management Practices will be required to minimize or avoid these risks. A Soil Management Plan will be developed to establish the notification, monitoring, profiling, confirmation sampling, and laboratory analysis of impacted soil for proper disposal of contaminated materials. Prior to construction, limited soil sampling will be conducted during the final design phase in the area of staining observed in the median between Limonite Avenue and 68th Street. HW-4: Abatement of identified asbestos containing materials and lead based paint will be conducted prior to the renovation of the bridge structures. HW-5: During construction, sampling and analysis of yellow striping will be performed in accordance with Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (Caltrans 2006). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-235 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality 2.2.6 Air Quality 2.2.6.1 REGULATORY SETTING The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air quality while the California Clean Air Act is its companion state law. These laws, and related regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and California Air Resources Board (ARB), set standards for the concentration of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have been established for six transportation - related criteria pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter (PM), which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PMIo) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, national and state standards exist for lead (PB) and state standards exist for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety, and are subject to periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics in their general definition. Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project -level air quality analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to this environmental analysis, a parallel "Conformity" requirement under the FCAA also applies. Conformity The conformity requirement is based on Federal Clean Air Act Section 176(c), which prohibits the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs or projects that do not conform to State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainting the NAAQS. "Transportation Conformity" applies to highway and transit projects and takes place on two levels: the regionalor, planning and programming —level and the project level. The project must conform at both levels to be approved. Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and "maintenance" (former nonattainment) areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were violated. U.S. EPA regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93 govern the conformity process. Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for NAAQS and do not apply at all for state standards regardless of the status of the area. Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system supports plans for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California) sulfur dioxide (SO2). California has attainment or maintenance areas for all of these transportation - related "criteria pollutants" except SO2, and also has a nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead is not currently required by the FCAA to be covered in transportation conformity analysis. Regional conformity is based on emission analysis of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) that include all Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-236 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality transportation projects planned for a region over a period of at least 20 years for the RTP) and 4 years (for the TIP). RTP and FTIP conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine whether or not the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests at various analysis years showing that requirements of the Clean Air Act and the SIP are met. If the conformity analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), make determinations that the RTP and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for achieving the goals of the FCAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be modified until conformity is attained. If the design concept, scope, and "open -to -traffic" schedule of a proposed transportation project are the same as described in the RTP and FTIP, then the proposed project meets regional conformity requirements for purposes of project -level analysis. Conformity analysis at the project -level includes verification that the project is included in the regional conformity analysis and a "hot -spot" analysis if an area is "nonattainment" or "maintenance" for carbon monoxide (CO) and/or particulate matter (PM10 or PM2.5). A region is "nonattainment" if one or more of the monitoring stations in the region measures a violation of the relevant standard and the U.S. EPA officially designates the area nonattainment. Areas that were previously designated as nonattainment areas but subsequently meet the standard may be officially redesignated to attainment by U.S. EPA and are then called "maintenance" areas. "Hot - spot" analysis is essentially the same, for technical purposes, as CO or particulate matter analysis performed for NEPA purposes. Conformity does include some specific procedural and documentation standards for projects that require a hot -spot analysis. In general, projects must not cause the "hot -spot" related standard to be violated, and must not cause any increase in the number and severity of violations in nonattainment areas. If a known CO or particulate matter violation is located in the project vicinity, the project must include measures to reduce or eliminate the existing violation(s) as well. 2.2.6.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The primary source used in the preparation of this section is the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Air Quality Report, dated June 2015 (Caltrans 2015c). Topography and Climate The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues throughout the Basin. The distinctive climate of the Basin is determined by its terrain, which includes a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, and by its geographic location, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The general region lies in the semi -permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (warm easterly winds blowing from the high desert east of Los Angeles). Many of the same factors that make living in southern California so desirable also contribute to the worst smog problem in the nation. Gentle ocean breezes carry pollutants into the inland valleys where they are trapped by the surrounding mountains. Thermal inversions act like a lid over the Basin. Bright Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-237 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality sunshine and warm temperatures cause some pollutants to react with each other, forming even more pollution. Given its proximity to the project site, data from the Western Regional Climate Center's Corona climate monitoring station has been used to characterize project vicinity climate conditions. The average summer (July) high and low temperatures recorded at the Corona monitoring station are 92.3 and 57.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), respectively, while the average winter (January) high and low temperatures are 65.3 and 39.7°F, respectively. The average annual rainfall recorded at the Corona monitoring station is 12.71 inches. The wind monitoring station nearest the project alignment is in the City of Norco. As such, data from the Norco wind monitoring station was used to characterize study area wind conditions. Wind patterns at the Norco station display a unidirectional flow, with winds arising primarily from the west, at an average speed of 4.5 miles per hour. Existing Air Quality Existing air quality conditions in the project area can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) that the State of California and the federal government have established for several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). Table 2-51 shows the state and federal standards for a variety of pollutants. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-238 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Table 2-51. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Symbol Average Time Standard (parts per million) Standard (micrograms per cubic meter) Violation Criteria Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin California National California National California National California National Ozone 03 1 hour 0.09 NA 180 NA If exceeded NA Extreme nonattainment NA 8 hours 0.070 0.075 137 147 If exceeded If fourth -highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is greater than the standard Nonattainment Extreme nonattainment Carbon monoxide CO 8 hours 9.0 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Attainment Attainment/ maintenance 1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Attainment Attainment/ maintenance (Lake Tahoe only) 8 hours 6 NA 7,000 NA If equaled or exceeded NA Attainment NA Nitrogen dioxide NO2 Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 0.053 57 100 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Nonattainment Attainment/ maintenance 1 hour 0.18 0.100 339 188 If exceeded If the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area exceeds the standard Nonattainment Attainment/ maintenance Sulfur dioxide SO2 24 hours 0.04 NA 105 NA If exceeded NA Attainment NA 3hours' NA 0.5 NA 1,300 NA If exceeded Attainment NA 1 hour 0.25 0.075 655 196 If exceeded If the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area exceeds the standard Attainment Attainment/ unclassified Annual NA NA NA 0.030 NA Hydrogen sulfide H2S 1 hour 0.03 NA 42 NA If equaled or exceeded NA Unclassified NA Vinyl chloride C2H3CI 24 hours 0.01 NA 26 NA If equaled or exceeded NA No information available NA Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-239 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Pollutant Symbol Average Time Standard (parts per million) Standard (micrograms per cubic meter) Violation Criteria Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin California National California National California National California National Inhalable particulate matter PK° Annual arithmetic mean NA NA 20 NA If exceeded NA Nonattainment NA 24 hours NA NA 50 150 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Nonattainment Attainment/ maintenance PM2.5 Annual arithmetic mean NA NA 12 12.0 If exceeded If the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean from single or multiple community - oriented monitors exceeds the standard Nonattainment Nonattainment 24 hours NA NA NA 35 NA If less than 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard NA Nonattainment Sulfate particles SO4 24 hours NA NA 25 NA If equaled or exceeded NA Attainment NA Lead particles Pb Calendar quarter NA NA NA 1.5 NA If exceeded on more than 1 day per year NA NA 30-day average NA NA 1.5 NA If equaled or exceeded NA Nonattainment NA Rolling 3-month average NA NA NA 0.15 NA Averaged over a rolling 3-month period Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only) Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only) Notes: National standards shown are the primary (public health) standards. All equivalent units are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torn ppm (parts per million) in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. The 3-hour national SO2 standard is a secondary standard. NA = not applicable. Source: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Air Quality Report, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015c). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-240 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Pollutant Standards Mira Loma Van Buren Norco-Norconian 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 Suspended particulates (PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration (Ng/m3) 39.3 56.5 73.6 - - - 4tn highest 24-hour concentration (pg/m3) 36.5 43.8 50.0 - - - 24-hour standard 98th percentile (Ng/m3) 35.1 37.5 40.0 - - - National annual average concentration (Ng/m3) 15.0 14.1 14.4 - - - State annual average concentration (Ng/m3) 15.1 18.6 19.0 - - - Number of days standard exceeded NAAQS 24-Hour (35 pg/m3) 7 9 9 - - - Source: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Air Quality Report, June 2015. (Caltrans 2015c). Notes: CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards. NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards. ppm = parts per million. pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. - = Insufficient data available to determine the value/data not available. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-243 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Sensitive Receptor Locations Some locations are considered more susceptible to adverse impacts from air pollution than others. These locations are commonly referred to as sensitive receptors and include schools, daycare facilities, elderly care establishments, medical facilities, and other areas that are populated with people considered more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality. Analyses performed by ARB indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet from high -traffic areas would substantially reduce the exposure to air contaminant concentrations and result in a decrease in asthma symptoms in children. A variety of sensitive receptors are located along the 14.6-mile project limits and include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare facilities, athletic facilities, health care facilities, convalescent centers, or rehabilitation centers. The northern section of the project vicinity, from SR-91 to the northern end of the project corridor, is densely populated and contains a variety of sensitive receptors. The southern section of the project vicinity is less densely populated than the northern section. Sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the 14.6-mile project alignment are shown in Figure 2-28. Beyond 1,000 feet, the direct influence of the freeway on the sensitive receptors is negligible. The existing air quality environment, with respect to the criteria pollutant concentrations presented in Table 2-52 and the general presence of toxic air contaminant pollutants that exist within the project vicinity, could potentially affect children and other population groups that are especially sensitive to air pollution in terms of environmental health risks and safety risks that result from air pollutants. Children can be more affected by environmental chemicals than adults because they eat, drink, and breathe more per pound of body weight than adults. Accordingly, children are considered to be more sensitive to air pollutant emissions, such as project construction- and operations -period emissions, which are further discussed below. Children's exposures to contaminants in air, water, and food can be higher than an adult in the same setting, and because children are still growing and developing, they can be more sensitive to the adverse health effects of chemicals than an adult. In some cases, the effects are irreversible. It is increasingly recognized that exposures early in life affect adult health. For more information about what the State of California is doing to protect children's health, see the California Environmental Protection Agency's Report to the Legislature Children's Environmental Health Program at http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/pdf/20141egreport.pd£ Other South Coast Air Quality Basin Pollutants Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present in approximately 44 of California's 58 counties. Asbestos is often found in serpentine rock and ultramafic rock near fault zones. Asbestos is a human health hazard when airborne. Asbestos fibers can be inhaled into lungs, causing inflammation and respiratory ailments and cancers. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rock in California indicates that there is no naturally occurring asbestos located on or near the project site. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-244 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality The project site is in the central portion of the Basin. The project area is within two Source Receptor Area (SRA) boundaries: SRA Number 22 (Corona/Norco Area) and SRA Number 23 (Metropolitan Riverside). The monitoring station closest to the northern terminus of the project alignment is the Mira Loma Van Buren Monitoring Station (5130 Poinsettia Place), in the City of Riverside, approximately 3.3 miles east of the project alignment. The Mira Loma Van Buren Monitoring Station monitors 03, CO, NO2, PMIo, and PM2,5. In addition, the Norco-Norconian Monitoring Station (USNFAC Norco), approximately 0.8 mile west of the project alignment, monitors PMIo. Table 2-52 summarizes air quality monitoring data from the Mira Loma Van Buren and Norco-Norconian monitoring stations during the last three years for which complete data are available (2012-2014). Given their proximity to the project area, both of these monitoring stations are considered to be representative of the air quality in the project area. Monitoring data presented in Table 2-52 show the following pollutant trends for Mira Loma Van Buren: the state one -hour 03 standard was exceeded 72 times during 2012, 32 times in 2013, and 55 times in 2014, while the national eight -hour 03 standard was exceeded 47 times during 2012, 21 times during 2013 and 29 times in 2014. CO and NO2 concentrations were low and recorded no exceedances during the three-year period. The state 24-hour PMIo standard was exceeded 98 times in 2012, 73 times in 2013, and 89 times in 2014 during the three-year reporting period, while the national standard was not exceeded during the three-year reporting period. The national 24-hour PM2,5 standard was exceeded 7 times in 2012 and 9 times in 2013. Data was insufficient to determine the numbers for year 2014. Monitoring data show the following trend for Norco: the state 24-hour PMIo standard was exceeded 6 times in 2012 and 18 times in 2013, while the national standard was not exceeded during the period 2012 through 2014. Data was insufficient to determine the numbers for year 2014 state violations during the three-year reporting period. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the state or federal standard, the area is classified as being in attainment for that pollutant. If a pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is considered a nonattainment area. If data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is exceeding the standard, the area is designated unclassified. The State of California has designated the southeastern portion of the Basin, which includes the project area, as being a nonattainment area for 03, PM2.5, and PMIo. The federal EPA has designated this area as being a nonattainment area for 03 (8-hour standard) and PM2,5 (see Table 2-52). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-241 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Table 2-52. Air Quality Data from Mira Loma Van Buren (ARB 33165) and Norco-Norconian (33155) Stations Pollutant Standards Mira Loma Van Buren Norco-Norconian 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 Ozone (03) Maximum concentration 1-hour period (ppm) 0.124 0.118 0.138 - - - Maximum concentration 8-hour period (ppm) 0.102 0.096 0.102 - - - Number of days standard exceeded CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 31 11 17 - - - CAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 72 32 55 - - - NAAQS 8-hour (> 0.075 ppm) 47 21 29 - - - Carbon monoxide (CO) Maximum concentration 8-hour period (ppm) 1.95 -- -- - - - Maximum concentration 1-hour period (ppm) 3.25 -- -- - - - Number of days standard exceeded NAAQS 8-hour (>9 ppm) 0 0 0 - - - CAAQS 8-hour (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 - - - NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0 - - - CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0 - - - Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual average concentration 0.014 0.014 0.014 1 Maximum 1-hour concentration 0.0607 0.0537 0.0577 = _ _ Number of days standard exceeded CAAQS (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 - - - NAAQS (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0 Suspended particulates (PMio) Maximum state 24-hour concentration (pg/m3) 76 143 83 51 56 64 4th highest state 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 65 61 75 40 45 47 Maximum national 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 78 147 85 52 58 65 4th highest national 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 67 62 77 41 46 48 State annual average concentration (CAAQS = 20 µg/m3) 38.8 40.0 41.8 26.0 -- 30.2 Number of days standard exceeded CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3)f 98 73 89 6 -- 18 NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3)f 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-242 FosIer,;R.d, iA K1lrvine1GIS1Preiects\HDR\00537 1381maodoclAooendix\AnnI3 Sensitive Receotors.mzd Date. 3/9/2016 19316 N Lantana or Residential (2008) Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) Figure 2-28 - Sheet 1 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-246 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K\Irvin,AAIS\Prnieefs\HOR\OOS37 OR\mandne\Annandiv\AnnR Sansifiva Raeanfnrg mart nafar siannla 1931R POPPY Cerrito Sports Cerrito Library Tree of Life y M O ry--f:s RudeII-R w Legend Sensitive Receptors Church Convalescent Home Daycare/Preschool pl Library ® Park School Residential (2008) El Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer 0 500 1,000 Feet 2,000 N Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) A ,rune SZH 9nna111l�1 1 Glen Aran MA NI k Loma Jul11 Valle Pere Home Gardens R E d ti LA fe Me! Figure 2-28 - Sheet 2 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-248 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K1lrvine1GIS\Preiects\HEIR\00537 OS\ maodoc\Aooendiz\AnnB Sensitive Recentors.mzd Date? 3/9/2016 19316 Parkildge EIer entary 'School lifte ijiri 1 ll no, .- '.E H of 4 is n e St . S-- • °1'1.1 4Q2 C c: nrnna a• •••. Glen Avon Alma Loma Home Gardem Legend Sensitive Receptors i Church Convalescent Home Daycare/Preschool Library Park School • Residential (2008) 0 Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) A l alaW 7•41111W fi c r }� 4• 'a' . �A r v. r <';6 y and "I' • .ti. . ,,. `t- . 1!, 'M,o n:atroh'�D r California Ave aapczr re Q Q if y Yard I;e+yWay. a *: Dikr u hiptlo�]Gu� y} r,... F� ►' qex :lit • Figure 2-28 - Sheet 3 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-250 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Corona' Norco Unified. ` •.SChO�OI Elm Dr Acre ,St Legend Sensitive Receptors Church ▪ Convalescent Home ▪ Daycare/Preschool Library ® Park School Residential (2008) El Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) A Eirgin.Way Figure 2-28 - Sheet 4 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-252 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project earn a a a 5 0 v DOr@•@ DD Q m E 0 N 0 0 3 N 2 0_ m Y tr i►t {144 x ._zN�;tt �� _6-Walton-St r , - 14 a�do4w:vairtgSit ., 1 � -r • 3. •�: Cool S. �prin.gs S• t.' 3 e - } k }� ,• ,49 NY• 1 m.. F- A : evert —Springs -D troi St Nicole C.t F Kern Riverbr Limonite Meadows Louis Vandermolen . Fundemental School' Legend Sensitive Receptors Church ▪ Convalescent Home Daycare/Preschool • Library ▪ Park EL School Residential (2008) 0 Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) ti t Figure 2-28 - Sheet 5 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-254 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project " IIIMIllefinff nell 1A J2 A A rr. C�� Ga@dwpbm Qom; 3 . ,::::::11 ' 1: HntRgest Nil m I 1e..�� in*a rai w;r I. AO. ��r :+rf -or Eli' Lli' Limonite Ave " ! V Legend Sensitive Receptors 0 gni Church � Convalescent Home � Daycare/Preschool � Library � Park School Residential (2008) Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer 500 1, 000 2,000 N Feet Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) a M.': 41111.�%111: . LIMInd,, aide L�� O E as tea C n rnn.a i Horne Garden. .��_ *' F C , NL" x) aPym'puS p"r ,- : . Q31 illA"t', 4.J-/.. gE c. 1I.. c R . " ,- Pot+`ero Dr O F ��.i ��fr i tar !! 4 r'. e P. ' ,ipilf t i w Red - 1 JUrLII Valle Pedl ey A pm Figure 2-28 - Sheet 6 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-256 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project KAIrvine\GIS1Proieets\HDR\00537 08\maodoclAo Legend Sensitive Receptors ifi Church Convalescent Home Daycare/Preschool ® Library Park School Residential (2008) Limits of Disturbance 1/4 Mile Buffer 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet Source: SCAG (2008). Google Earth (2014) a _-;Ve n.t u relb r G Rfluou@flan DP - Figure 2-28 - Sheet 7 Sensitive Receptor Locations Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-258 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality 2.2.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary This project would construct an express lane within the median of the existing I-15 freeway in Riverside County between post miles 36.8 and 51.4, a distance of approximately 14.6 miles. Construction is anticipated to begin sometime in 2017 and last approximately 30 months. Temporary construction emissions would result from grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/subgrade construction, paving, and the commuting patterns of construction workers. Pollutant emissions would vary daily, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and prevailing weather. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur because of the release of particulate emissions (airborne dust) generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities related to construction. Emissions from construction equipment also are anticipated and would include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), directly emitted particulate matter (PK() and PM2.5), and toxic air contaminants (aka: mobile source air toxics [MSATs]), such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Ozone is a regional pollutant that is derived from NOx and ROG in the presence of sunlight and heat. Site preparation and roadway construction would involve clearing, cut -and -fill activities, grading, removing or improving existing roadways, and paving roadway surfaces. Construction - related effects on air quality from most highway projects would be greatest during the site preparation phase because most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils to and from a site. Caltrans' policy to reduce construction -period emissions by the greatest extent feasible is to require implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures, as identified below. Combustion Exhaust Emissions The project would conform to Caltrans construction requirements, as specified in Caltrans' Standard Specifications Section 14-9.02 (Air Pollution Control) for asphalt concrete emissions and all earthwork, clearing and grubbing, and roadbed activities involving heavy construction equipment. The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, including any air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes, specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code. Exhaust emissions control measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would have their engines turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Phase and schedule construction emissions to avoid emissions peaks and discontinue use during second -stage smog alerts. 2. Keep all equipment properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 3. All on -road and off -road equipment shall comply with ARB commercial vehicle idle regulations. 4. All off -road construction equipment shall meet EPA Tier 4 emissions standards. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-259 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality 5. Use electricity from power poles, rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline powered generators if or where feasible. 6. Use onsite mobile equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane, or butane) as feasible. 7. Use solar -powered signal boards. 8. Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited to: (1) consolidating truck deliveries, (2) providing a rideshare or shuttle service for construction workers, and (3) providing dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site. Particulate Emissions SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) requires that fugitive dust control measures be applied to all construction projects in the Basin, unless said project is specifically exempted by the rule. Construction projects that are classified as "large operations" (20 hectares [50 acres] or larger) are required to submit a fully executed Large Operation Notification Form (Form 403 N) to the Executive Office of the SCAQMD within seven days of qualifying as a large operation and to maintain daily records to document the specific control actions taken. The control measures incorporated in the Rule are available in a Rule 403 Implementation Handbook. The project would be considered a large operation under the Rule's definition, and would be required to implement measures for each source of PMIo emissions in addition to the requirements for large operations, as specified in the Rule. The project would be required to implement measures for each source of PMIo emissions, as specified in the Rule, and included as Table 2-53. Construction -period criteria pollutant emissions were quantified using the Road Construction Model, Version 7.1.5.1. A summary of emissions estimates is provided in Table 2-54. Modeling assumptions, which include 57,000 cubic yards of excavation export and 171,000 cubic yards of imported borrow, are detailed in Appendix D of the Air Quality Report. The implementation of exhaust and fugitive dust emission control measures identified above and included in Table 2-53 would reduce such emissions by the greatest extent feasible. As such, effects during construction are considered to be not adverse under NEPA and less than significant under CEQA. No additional measures are necessary. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-260 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Table 2-53. List of Best Available Control Measures from SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 Source Category Control Measure Guidance Backfilling • Stabilize backfill material when not actively handling; and • Stabilize backfill material during handling; and • Stabilize soil at completion of activity. • Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving. • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to backfilling equipment. • Empty loader bucked slowly so that no dust plumes are generated. • Minimize drop height from loader bucket. Clearing and grading • Maintain stability of soil through prewatering of site prior to clearing and grubbing; and • Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities; and • Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities. • Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible. • Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. Clearing forms • Use water spray to clear forms; or • Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; and • Use vacuum system to clear forms. • Use of high-pressure air to clear forms may cause exceedance of Rule requirements. Crushing • Stabilize surface soils prior to operation of support equipment; and • Stabilize material after crushing. • Follow permit conditions for crushing equipment. • Prewater material prior to loading into crusher. • Monitor crusher emissions opacity. • Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust plumes. Cut and fill • Prewater soils prior to cut and fill activities; and • Stabilize soils during and after cut and fill activities. • For large sites, prewater with sprinklers or water trucks and allow time for penetration. • Use water trucks/pulls to water solids to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts. Demolition- mechanical/manual • Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce dust; and • Stabilize surface soils where support equipment and vehicles will operate; and • Stabilize loose soil and demolition debris; and • Comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. • Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Disturbed soils • Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction site; and • Stabilize disturbed soil between structures. • Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on soils where possible. • If interior block walls are planned, install as early as possible. • Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-261 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Source Category Control Measure Guidance Earthmoving activities • Preapply water to depth of proposed cuts; and • Reapply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and • Stabilize solids once earthmoving activities are complete. • Grade each project phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase. • Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site. • Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Importing/exporting of bulk materials • Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and • Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and • Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and • Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and • Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114. • Use tarps or suitable enclosures on haul trucks. • Check belly -dump truck seals regularly and remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage. • Comply with track out prevention/mitigation requirements. • Provide water while loading and unloading to reduce visible dust plumes. Landscaping • Stabilize soils, materials, slopes. • Apply water to materials to stabilize. • Maintain materials in a crusted condition. • Maintain effective cover over materials. • Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes. • Hydroseed prior to rainy season. Road shoulder maintenance • Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing; and • Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed gravel to maintain a stabilized surface after completing road shoulder maintenance. • Installation of curbing and/or paving of road shoulders can reduce recurring maintenance costs. • Use of chemical dust suppressants can inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future road shoulder maintenance costs. Screening • Prewater material prior to screening; and • Limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plume length standards; and • Stabilize material immediately after screening. • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to screening operation. • Drop material through the screen slowly and minimize drop height. • Install wind barrier with a porosity of no more than 50 percent upwind of screen to the height of the drop point. Staging areas • Stabilize staging areas during use; and • Stabilize staging area soils at project completion. • Limit size of staging area. • Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. • Limit number and size of staging area entrances/exits. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-262 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Source Category Control Measure Guidance Stockpiles/bulk material/handling • Stabilize stockpiled materials; and • Stockpiles within 100 yards of offsite occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height, or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. • Add or remove material from the downwind portion of the storage pile. • Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides or faces. Traffic areas for construction activities • Stabilize all off -road traffic and parking areas; and • Stabilize all haul routes; and • Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. • Apply gravel/paving to all haul routes as soon as possible to all future roadway areas. • Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only used on established parking areas/haul routes. Trenching • Stabilize surface soils where trencher or excavator and support equipment will operate; and • Stabilize solids at the completion of trenching activities. • Prewatering of soils prior to trenching is an effective preventive measure. For deep trenching activities, pretrench to 18 inches, then soak soils via the pretrench and resume trenching. • Washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent crushing and drying of soil on equipment. Truck loading • Prewater material prior to loading; and • Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches (CVC 23114). • Empty loader bucket such that no visible dust plumes are created. • Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the truck to minimize drop height when loading. Turf overseeding • Apply sufficient water immediately prior to conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet opacity and plume length standards; and • Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. • Haul waste material immediately off site. Unpaved roads/parking lots • Stabilize soils to meet the applicable performance standards; and • Limit vehicular travel to established unpaved roads (haul routes) and unpaved parking lots. • Restricting vehicular access to established unpaved travel paths and parking lots can reduce stabilization requirements. Vacant land In instances where vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off -road vehicles, prevent motor vehicle and/or off -road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees, or other effective control measures. — Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-263 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Table 2-54. Estimate of Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Construction (pounds per day) Construction Phase ROG CO NOx PK° PM2.5 Grubbing and clearing 2 16 19 43 10 Grading/excavation 8 45 85 47 13 Drainage/utilities/sub-grade 5 33 43 45 11 Paving 5 19 17 1 1 Daily maximum regional emissions 8 45 85 47 13 SCAQMD regional emissions daily significance threshold 75 550 100 150 55 SCAQMD localized emissions daily significance threshold NAa 1,577 270 12 8 Source: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Air Quality Report, June 2015 (Ca!trans 2015c). Detailed calculation assumptions provided in Appendix D of the Air Quality Report. a ROG emissions have no SCAQMD localized emissions threshold. Diesel Health Risk Diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that would occur during construction would pose some health risk to populations present within the immediate project vicinity. More specifically, children would be more affected by DPM emissions than adults because they breathe more per pound of body weight than adults. Thus, children's exposures to construction -period DPM emissions would be higher than adults' in the same setting. Because children are still growing and developing, they can be more sensitive to the adverse health effects of DPM emissions than adults. In some cases, the effects are irreversible. It is increasingly recognized that exposures early in life affect adult health. Construction activities associated with the project would be sporadic, transitory, and short-term in nature (less than three years). The assessment of cancer risk is typically based on a 70-year exposure period. Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70-year exposure period, construction of the project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed persons due to the short-term nature of construction. With respect to non -cancer risk related to DPM during construction, the maximum predicted annual construction DPM concentration of 1.453 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) is lower than the chronic inhalation reference exposure level (REL) for DPM of 5.0 µg/m3. The Hazard Index (HI), which is the ratio of the annual DPM concentration to the REL, is 0.291. This HI is lower than the SCAQMD significance criteria of 1.0. Consequently, the estimation of diesel health risks associated with construction activities is considered to be not adverse under NEPA and less than significant under CEQA. No mitigation measures are necessary. Odors During construction, temporary odors would be present as a result of diesel fuel combustion, paving operations, and other typical construction activities. This would be a short-term, localized impact and is not considered significant under CEQA. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-264 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Permanent Regional Air Quality Conformity The project is included in the SCAG 2015 FTIP (Project ID RIV071267), which was found to be conforming by FHWA on December 15, 2014. As such, it can be concluded that the project's operational emissions (which include the 03 precursors ROG and NOx) meet the transportation conformity requirements imposed by the EPA and SCAQMD. In addition, operations -period criteria pollutant emissions were quantified using the CT-EMFAC emissions estimation model to ascertain how project -related changes to regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and travel speeds affect regional emissions. A summary of emissions estimates for Opening Year 2020 and Horizon Year 2040 is provided in Table 2-55 for the affected project area. Modeling assumptions are detailed in Appendix D of the Air Quality Report. Table 2-55. Estimate of Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Long-term Operations (pounds per day) Evaluation Scenario Criteria Pollutant Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG CO NOx PMlo PM2.5 Baseline year2013 3,125 33,233 12,296 1,079 541 Opening year 2020 No -Build Alternative 2,126 20,295 7,040 1,036 462 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 2,157 20,477 7,129 1,058 472 Increase/(decrease) compared to baseline (968) (12,756) (5,167) (21) (69) Increase/(decrease) compared to No - Build 31 182 89 22 10 Horizon year 2040 No -Build Alternative 2,359 22,556 6,317 1,584 709 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 2,398 22,849 6,399 1,626 727 Increase/(decrease) compared to baseline (727) (10,384) (5,897) 547 186 Increase/(decrease) compared to No - Build 39 293 82 42 18 SCAQMD regional significance threshold 55 550 55 150 55 Source: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Air Quality Report, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015c).Detailed calculation assumptions provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality Report. Although the project is a conforming project for regional emissions, it requires both a CO and PM2.5/PMIo hot -spot analysis to determine any localized emissions effects. The potential for adverse local impacts for both pollutants is assessed below. Localized CO Hot -Spot Evaluation The project was evaluated using the CO analysis protocol, which was described earlier. The CO protocol includes two flowcharts that illustrate when a detailed CO analysis needs to be prepared. The first flowchart, provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality Report, is used to Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-265 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality ascertain the CO modeling requirements for new projects. The questions (shown in the first flowchart) relevant to the project, and the answers to those questions, are as follows. 3.1.1: Is the project exempt from all emissions analyses? Response: No, the project does not qualify for an exemption. As shown in Table 1 of the CO protocol (provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality Report), the project does not fall into a project category that is exempt from all emissions analysis (proceed to 3.1.2). 3.1.2: Is the project exempt from regional emissions analyses? Response: No, the project is not exempt from a regional emissions analysis. As shown in Table 2 of the CO protocol (provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality Report), the project does not meet the criteria of any of the project categories identified as exempt from regional emissions analysis (proceed to 3.1.3). 3.1.3: Is the project locally defined as regionally significant? Response: Yes, SCAG defines the project as regionally significant (proceed to 3.1.4). 3.1.4: Is the project in a federal attainment area? Response: No. The project alignment is located in the SCAB, which is a federal attainment/maintenance area with respect to CO; however, the SCAB is classified nonattainment for pollutants 03 and PM2.5. If a project area is not classified attainment for all transportation -related criteria pollutants, the project is subject to a regional conformity determination (proceed to 3.1.5). 3.1.5: Is there a currently conforming RTP and RTIP? Response: Yes, the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and 2015 FTIP (proceed to 3.1.6). 3.1.6: Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming RTP and TIP? Response: Yes, the project is listed in both the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and the SCAG 2015 FTIP under project ID number RIV071267. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2012, and approved by FHWA on June 6, 2012. The 2015 FTIP was adopted by SCAG on September 11, 2014, and approved by FHWA on December 15, 2014. Furthermore, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 4 was approved by FHWA on April 8, 2015 (proceed to 3.1.7). 3.1.7: Has the project design concept and/or scope changed significantly from that in the regional analysis? Response: No, neither the project design concept nor scope has changed from that in the regional analysis (proceed to 3.1.9). Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-266 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality 3.1.9: The conclusion from this series of questions and answers is that the project needs to be examined for its local air impacts (proceed to Section 4, Figure 3 of CO protocol. On the basis of the answers to the first flowchart, a second flowchart is used to determine the level of local CO impact analysis required for the project. The questions applicable to the project in the second flowchart (also provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality Report) and the answers to those questions are as follows. Level 1: Is the project in a CO nonattainment area? Response: No, as shown previously in Table 2-51, the SCAB is classified as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards. A summary of the most recent three years of monitored CO data was presented earlier in Table 2-52. The table provides CO monitoring data collected at the Mira Loma Van Buren (ARB No. 33165) monitoring station. Level 1: Was the area redesignated as "attainment" after the 1990 Clean Air Act? Response: Yes, the SCAB was reclassified to attainment/maintenance from serious nonattainment, effective June 11, 2007. Level 1: Has "continued attainment" been verified with the local Air District, if appropriate? Response: Yes. Based on ambient air monitoring data collected by the SCAQMD, the SCAB has continually met the federal ambient air quality standards for CO since 2002 (Proceed to Level 7). Level 7: Does project worsen air quality? Response: Yes. According to Section 4.7.1 of the CO protocol, the following criteria provide a basis for determining whether a project has potential to worsen localized air quality: • The project significantly increases the percentage of vehicles operating in the cold start mode. Increasing the number of vehicles in cold start mode by as little as two percent should be considered potentially significant. o Given the nature of the project, which is to add tolled express lanes in each direction within the project limits of I-15, there would be no measurable effect on the percentage of vehicles operating in the cold start mode. • The project significantly increases traffic volumes. Increases in traffic volumes in excess of five percent should be considered potentially significant. Increasing the traffic volume by less than five percent may still be potentially significant if there is also a reduction in average speeds. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-267 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality o With respect to the project, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes estimated for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would be increased over the No -Build Alternative in the Opening Year 2020 and Horizon Year 2040. However, traffic flow would improve as freeway speeds increase under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). As shown in Table 2-56, under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), mainline segment traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by as much as 18 percent at Opening Year 2020 and as much as 15 percent at Horizon Year 2040 when compared with the No -Build Alternative. Row one of Table 2-56 provides a summary of anticipated changes in terms of ADT volumes and percent change in ADT volumes for the entire I-15 Express Lanes Project limits, at Opening Year 2020 and Horizon Year 2040. The percent change for ADT volumes varies for the Opening Year 2020 from —22 percent (for the Hidden Valley Parkway on -ramp to the SR-91 westbound off -ramp) to +18 percent (for the SR-91 westbound off -ramp to the SR-91 eastbound off -ramp). The percent change for ADT volumes varies for the Opening Year 2040 from —13 percent (for the 6th Street off -ramp to 6th Street on -ramp) to +15 percent (for the SR-91 westbound off -ramp to the SR-91 eastbound off -ramp). • The project worsens traffic flow. For uninterrupted roadway segments, a reduction in average speeds (within a range of three to 50 miles per hour) should be regarded as worsening traffic flow. For intersection segments, a reduction in average speed or an increase in average delay should be considered a worsening of traffic flow. o Based on the traffic study prepared for the project (Caltrans 2014a), the project improvements would result in no change or improvement in intersection delay for 48 of the 52 study intersections in Opening Year 2020, and 47 of the 52 study intersections in Horizon Year 2040 during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Because all intersection locations would not experience improved operating conditions under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) when compared to the No -Build Alternative, the project has the potential to worsen air quality. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-268 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Table 2-56. 1-15 Mainline ADT Volumes Interstate 15 Freeway Segment Opening Year 2020 Horizon Year 2040 No -Build Alternative Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Percent Change No -Build Alternative Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Percent Change Overall ADT and Percentage Change Range Summary (data for individual segments provided below) 96,320 to 195,410 104,840 to 189,850 -22% to +18% 128,940 to 251,280 134,390 to 255,530 -13% to +15% North of SR-60 WB off -ramp 195,410 189,850 -3% 251,280 255,530 2% SR-60 off -ramp to SR-60 EB on -ramp 130,680 129,430 -1% 176,220 184,830 5% SR-60 EB on -ramp to SR-60 WB on -ramp 119,410 119,910 <1% 163,140 175,290 7% SR-60 WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd off -ramp 140,560 142,610 1% 187,830 205,630 9% Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd off -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd WB on -ramp 141,520 145,080 2% 186,590 189,300 1% Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd WB on -ramp to Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd EB on -ramp 137,440 133,820 -3% 179,070 166,250 -8% Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd EB on -ramp to Limonite Ave off -ramp (Bellegrave) 141,660 122,160 -16% 185,390 167,180 -11% Limonite Ave off -ramp to Limonite Ave on -ramp 124,370 104,840 -19% 160,960 142,500 -13% Limonite Ave on -ramp to 6th St off -ramp 144,990 126,240 -15% 191,510 172,980 -11 % 6th St off -ramp to 6th St on -ramp 128,670 113,160 -14% 173,280 153,760 -13% 6th St on -ramp to 2nd St off -ramp 135,480 133,780 -1% 183,790 181,060 -2% 2nd St off -ramp to 2nd St on -ramp 121,140 119,020 -2% 169,300 173,970 3% 2nd St on -ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy off -ramp 137,520 134,640 -2% 189,490 171,440 -11 % Hidden Valley Pkwy off -ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy on -ramp 117,210 120,050 2% 150,580 169,770 11 % Hidden Valley Pkwy on -ramp to SR-91 WB off -ramp 135,000 110,670 -22% 176,060 157,470 -12% SR-91 WB off -ramp to SR-91 EB off -ramp 96,320 117,420 18% 138,500 162,770 15% SR-91 EB on -ramp to SR-91 WB on -ramp 98,680 118,650 17% 155,380 171,970 10% SR-91 WB on -ramp to Magnolia Ave off -ramp 155,710 142,920 -9% 233,900 210,790 -11 % Magnolia Ave off -ramp to Magnolia Ave on -ramp 128,670 122,500 -5% 202,920 209,040 3% Magnolia Ave on -ramp to Ontario Ave off -ramp 138,230 136,910 -1% 217,070 209,380 -4% East Ontario Ave off -ramp to East Ontario Ave on -ramp 128,040 119,680 -7% 207,250 217,380 5% Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-269 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Interstate 15 Freeway Segment Opening Year 2020 Horizon Year 2040 No -Build Alternative Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Percent Change No -Build Alternative Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Percent Change East Ontario Ave on -ramp to El Cerrito Rd/Foothill Pkwy off -ramp 131,910 131,260 <-1% 220,200 213,700 -3% El Cerrito Rd/Foothill Pkwy off -ramp to El Cerrito Rd/Foothill Pkwy on -ramp 129,550 114,160 -13% 219,270 205,130 -7% El Cerrito Rd/Foothill Pkwy on -ramp to Cajalco Rd off -ramp 133,900 122,580 -9% 176,070 205,130 14% Cajalco Rd off -ramp to Cajalco Rd on -ramp 116,630 113,580 -3% 128,940 138,220 7% Cajalco Rd on -ramp to Weirick Rd off -ramp 118,850 114,050 -4% 138,140 135,520 -2% Weirick Rd off -ramp to Weirick Rd on -ramp 113,760 108,690 -5% 131,030 134,390 3% South of Weirick Rd on -ramp 115,720 111,140 -4% 135,720 138,870 2% Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-270 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Level 7: Is the project suspected of resulting in higher CO concentrations than those existing within the region at the time of attainment demonstration? Response: No. According to Section 4.7.2 of the CO Protocol, project sponsors are encouraged to use the following criteria to determine the potential for the project to result in higher CO concentrations than those existing within the region at the time of attainment demonstration: • The receptors at the location under study are at the same distance or farther from the traveled roadway than the receptors at the location where attainment has been demonstrated. o A receptor distance of three meters from the traveled roadway was used in the CO attainment demonstration prepared for the 2003 AQMP. With respect to the project, all sensitive receptors are located more than three meters from the traveled roadway. • The roadway geometry of the two locations is not significantly different. An example of a significant difference would be a larger number of lanes at the location under study compared to the location where attainment has been demonstrated. o In the CO attainment demonstration prepared for the 2003 AQMP, four approach lanes in all directions were used to model the intersections at WilshireNeteran and La Cienega/Century, while three approach lanes in all directions were used to model the intersections at Sunset/Highland and Long Beach/Imperial. With respect to the project, there would be six or fewer approach lanes under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). It is worth noting that in the CO attainment demonstration, all modeled intersections were four -leg intersections, which differ from the project Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), which includes three -leg and four -leg intersections, with multiple approach lanes. In comparing the total number of intersection approach lanes, the attainment demonstration intersections had 12 to 16 approach lanes each. Intersections under both Build Alternatives have from three to 21 lanes. However, the number of approach lanes under the most impacted intersection for the project Build Alternatives is 12. • Expected worse -case meteorology at the location under study is the same or better than the worst -case meteorology at the location where attainment has been demonstrated. Relevant meteorological variables include: wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and stability class. o In the CO attainment demonstration prepared for the 2003 AQMP, a wind speed of one meter per second, stability class D, and worst -case wind angle were used as modeling assumptions. These assumptions are considered worst -case, and, as such, the expected worst -case meteorology at the location under study would be the same or better. In addition, there is no meaningful difference in temperature between the attainment demonstration intersection locations and the project intersection location. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-271 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality • Traffic lane volumes at the location under study are the same or lower than those at the location where attainment has been demonstrated. o A comparison of the traffic volumes per lane used for modeling in the attainment plan demonstration and volumes per lane projected to occur at study intersection locations is provided in Tables 2-57 and 2-58, respectively. Table 2-57. Peak -Hour Approach Lane Volumes Used in the 2003 AQMP Attainment Demonstration Location Eastbound (AM/PM) Westbound (AM/PM) Southbound AM/PM) Northbound (AM/PM) Wilshire & Veteran (4 lanes all directions) 1,238/517 458/829 180/350 140/233 Sunset & Highland (3 lanes all directions) 472/588 447/513 768/611 517/746 La Cienega & Century (4 lanes all directions) 635/561 473/682 346/507 205/419 Long Beach & Imperial (3 lanes all directions) 406/673 587/467 160/315 252/383 Source: SCAQMD, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. o As shown in Table 2-58, Horizon Year 2040 approach lane traffic volumes during the peak hours at the most impacted intersection under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not exceed the highest attainment demonstration lane volumes of 1,238. Table 2-58. Horizon Year Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Intersection Approach Lane Volumes Location Eastbound (AM/PM) Westbound (AM/PM) Southbound AM/PM) Northbound (AM/PM) Hamner Avenue and Hidden Valley Parkway (3 lanes all directions) 77/103 192/175 493/420 288/512 • Percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode at the location under study is the same or lower than the percentage at the location where attainment has been demonstrated. o Both the attainment -area demonstration intersection locations (Table 2-57) and project -area intersection locations (Table 2-58) are located along urban arterial roadways within the SCAB. As such, vehicles operating in the cold start mode are expected to be similar at all intersection locations. • Percentage of heavy duty gas trucks at the location under study is the same or lower than the percentage at the location where attainment has been demonstrated. o Both the attainment -area demonstration intersection locations (Table 2-57) and project -area intersection locations (Table 2-58) are located along urban arterial roadways (that contain a similar mix of urban land uses) within the SCAB. As such, the percentage of heavy duty gas trucks comprising the vehicular fleet mix is expected to be similar at all intersection locations. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-272 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality • For projects involving intersections, average delay and queue length for each approach is the same or smaller for the intersection under study compared to those found in the intersection where attainment has been demonstrated. o As shown above in Tables 2-57 and 2-58, Horizon Year 2040 approach lane traffic volumes during the peak hours at the most impacted intersection under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not exceed the highest attainment demonstration lane volumes. As such, average delay and queue length for each approach would likely be similar or less for the intersections under study compared to those found in the intersection where attainment has been demonstrated. • Background concentration at the location under study is the same or lower than the background concentration at the location where attainment has been demonstrated. o As shown in Table 2-52, the most recently available background CO concentration in the project area was 1.95 ppm during year 2012 for the eight - hour averaging period. This compares to an eight -hour average maximum background concentration of 7.8 ppm (year 2005) used for the 2003 AQMP attainment demonstration. On the basis of the CO Protocol screening criteria under Section 4.7.2 of said protocol, all intersection locations can be screened out at this juncture and do not require further analysis. Potential impacts would not be adverse under NEPA and would be less than significant under CEQA. Project -level CO conformity determination requirements are satisfied. Localized PM2.5 and PM10 Hot -Spot Evaluation While most projects create particulate emissions during construction, construction activities lasting five years or less are considered temporary impacts under the EPA transportation conformity rule and are exempt. It is expected that this project would be completed in less than three years (2017-2020). As such, hot -spot review is therefore limited to operational impacts. The EPA has specified a quantitative method for analyzing localized PM2,5 or PMio concentrations from operational traffic titled, Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot -Spot Analyses in PM2,5 and PMIo Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in November 2013. A quantitative PM2,5 and PMIo conformity review based on this most -recent EPA guidance is provided below. EPA specifies in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) that only "projects of air quality concern" are required to undergo a PM2.5 and PMIo hot -spot analysis. EPA defines projects of air quality concern as certain highway and transit projects that involve significant levels of diesel traffic or any other project that is identified by the PM2.5 SIP as a localized air quality concern. A discussion of the project compared to projects of air quality concern, as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), is provided below: • New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles. The project is proposing to add capacity and operational improvements on I-15 from just north of Cajalco Road in Riverside County, northward to the San Bernardino County line. The proposed improvements would increase traffic volumes but would have a Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-273 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality negligible effect on the number of diesel -powered vehicles that use the subject facility or any adjacent facilities. As detailed in the approved Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Traffic Operations Analysis Report (May 2014) (Caltrans 2014a), heavy-duty truck traffic currently makes up approximately nine percent of the traffic volumes along the project area limits of I- 15. Based on Caltrans' traffic projections, heavy-duty truck traffic along this I-15 main -line segment is expected to increase through Horizon Year 2040 over existing conditions, comprising approximately 10 percent of traffic volumes along the project area limits in the Horizon Year 2040. Because truck volumes currently, and will continue to, exceed eight percent of average daily traffic volumes, the project is considered to be a project of air quality concern, and further analysis is warranted. • Projects affecting intersections that are at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles or those that will change to LOS D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project. The project is proposing to add capacity and operational improvements on I-15. The primary project objective is to improve both existing and future mobility, reduce congestion, and improve mainline merge and diverge movements. The project area has been identified as a corridor that needs capacity improvements to address existing and projected capacity deficiencies from the accelerated growth and development that are taking place in communities along the corridor and that are expected to continue. • New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location. The project has no bus or rail terminal component, and it would not alter travel patterns to/from any existing bus or rail terminal. • Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location. The project would not expand any bus terminal, rail terminal, or related transfer point that would increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at any single location. • Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the PM2 5- or PMIo-applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. The project site is not in or affecting an area or location identified in any PMIo or PM2.5 implementation plan. The immediate project area is not considered to be a site of violation or possible violation. The discussion provided above indicates that the project would be considered a project of air quality concern, as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). Therefore, a quantitative PM2.5 and PMIo hot -spot evaluation was performed. The analysis concluded that it is unlikely that the project would generate new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay attainment of national AAQS for PM2,5 and PMIo. The SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group concurred with this determination on June 2, 2015, and determined that the project -level quantitative PM hotspot analysis was acceptable for NEPA circulation. A copy of this finding, as well as the Quantitative PM Conformity Hot -Spot Analysis completed for the project is provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality Report. Federal CAA (40 CFR 93.116) requirements are therefore met. As indicated in the Quantitative PM Conformity Hot -Spot Analysis, project -level PM2.5 and PMIo conformity was demonstrated based on the design value for the project's build alternative not exceeding the design value for the No -Build Alternative, at any receptor location. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-274 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Supplemental Analysis of Re -Entrained Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions from vehicle travel on paved roads (i.e., re -entrained dust) can be calculated using the emission factor equation provided in the Fifth Edition of EPA's AP-42 emissions factor compilation document (EPA 2011). Based on the EPA's AP-42 emission factor equation, re -entrained roadway emissions of PK() and PM2.5 along the project limits of I-15 would increase by 1.9 percent under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) in Opening Year 2020 and increase by 1.8 percent under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) in Horizon Year 2040, when compared to the No -Build Alternative. Emissions would increase under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) proportional to annual average daily traffic (AADT) (and related VMT) increases and changes in average vehicle weight. The emissions calculation worksheet is provided in Appendix D in the Air Quality Report. Evaluation of Health Effects Related to Mobile -Source Air Toxics With respect to the project, the projected maximum AADT volumes at Horizon Year 2040 would be above the 140,000 to 150,000 AADT criterion established by FHWA for projects considered to have higher potential for MSAT effects. As such, the project normally would be considered to be a project with higher potential MSAT effects. According to FHWA guidance, "projects with higher potential MSAT effects" have the potential for meaningful differences in VMT and related MSAT emissions among project alternatives. A summary of Horizon Year 2040 VMT and related MSAT emissions among the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) and No -Build Alternative, in comparison to Existing/Baseline Year 2013, is provided below in Table 2-59. Table 2-59. Comparison of Years 2013 and 2040 MSAT Emissions in Pounds per Day MSAT Pollutant Baseline Year 2013 Horizon Year 2040 Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) No -Build Alternative Net Change Diesel PM 189 105 102 3 Formaldehyde 86 85 85 -- 1,3-Butadiene 9 5 5 -- Benzene 61 43 42 1 Acrolein 2 1 1 -- Acetaldehyde 37 39 39 -- Naphthalene 3 6 6 -- POM 2 1 1 -- DEOG 410 488 487 1 Total MSAT Emissions 799 773 768 5 Corridor VMT 7,838,250 12,917,390 13,273,980 356,590 Source: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Air Quality Report, June 2015 (Caltrans 2015c). MSAT emissions under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) are estimated to increase by five pounds per day when compared to the No -Build Alternative. However, overall MSAT emissions at Horizon Year 2040 are anticipated to be less than Baseline/Existing Year 2013 levels. To comply with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.22[b]) regarding incomplete or unavailable information, Appendix E of the Air Quality Report contains a discussion regarding how air toxics analysis is an emerging field and current scientific Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-275 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality techniques, tools, and data are not sufficient to estimate accurately the human health effects that would result from a transportation project in a way that would be useful to decision -makers. Also in compliance with 40 CFR 150.22(b), Appendix E of the Air Quality Report contains a summary of current studies regarding the health effects of MSATs. In addition to the health risks associated with construction -period DPM emissions discussed above under Diesel Health Risk, there would also be health risks associated with exposure to operations -period MSAT emissions to populations present within the immediate project vicinity. More specifically, children would be more affected by MSAT emissions than adults because they breathe more per pound of body weight than adults. Thus, children's exposures to MSAT emissions would be higher than adults' in the same setting. Because children are still growing and developing, they can be more sensitive to the adverse health effects of MSAT emissions than adults. In some cases, the effects are irreversible. It is increasingly recognized that exposures early in life affect adult health. The amount of MSAT emissions emitted under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) or No -Build Alternative during long-term project operations would be proportional to the VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. Because VMT is estimated to be similar for the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) when compared to the No -Build Alternative, MSAT emissions are also expected to be similar with respect to the two alternatives. As such, there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among either alternative. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels at Horizon Year 2040 as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent from 2010 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA -projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. Under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) there would be localized areas where VMT would increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that localized increases and decreases in MSAT emissions may occur. The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced along the I-15 mainline, under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative). However, even if these increases do occur, they too will be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations. In summary, under the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) in the Horizon Year 2040 it is expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the sub -region, relative to the No -Build alternative, due to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, and due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs. No permanent adverse air quality impacts under NEPA or significant impacts under CEQA would occur due to operation of the project; therefore, no mitigation for operational impacts is needed. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-276 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, increased congestion, when compared with the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), would likely result in worsened air quality. 2.2.6.4 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following minimization measure (AQ-1), which is a standard measure for all Caltrans projects, along with measures AQ-2 through AQ-6 would be implemented to minimize short- term air quality impacts: AQ-1: Implementation of Construction Measures to Reduce Fugitive Dust Emissions. Consistent with all applicable requirements, a fully executed Large Operation Notification Form will be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Even though the project's emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for construction, as required by the SCAQMD's Fugitive Dust Rule 403, the project proponent must implement the applicable PM10- and PM2.5- reducing construction practices shown in Table 2-53 during construction of the proposed project. AQ-2: All measures, pertinent to each source of PM10 emissions which the project is responsible for, will be implemented as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403. AQ-3: All non -road construction equipment shall meet or exceed equivalent emissions performance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 standards. AQ-4: All on -road and off -road equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) commercial vehicle idle regulations. AQ-5: The solicitation for construction bids shall include language requiring the use of energy and fuel -efficient fleets and zero -emission technologies for vehicles where possible. AQ-6: Prior to construction, a training for contractors and their employees shall be developed and presented regarding air quality impacts from construction activities and potential health risks to nearby receptors, along with ways to reduce emissions. Climate change is analyzed at the end of this chapter. Neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) nor Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued explicit guidance or methods to conduct project -level greenhouse gas analysis. As stated on FHWA's climate change website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/index.htm; FHWA 2014.), climate change considerations should be integrated throughout the transportation decision -making process —from planning through project development and delivery. Addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation up front in the planning process will aid decision -making and improve efficiency at the program level, and will inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project - level decision -making Climate change considerations can easily be integrated into many planning factors, such as supporting economic vitality and global efficiency, increasing safety and mobility, enhancing the environment, promoting energy conservation, and improving the quality of life. Because there have been more requirements set forth in California legislation and executive orders on climate change, the issue is addressed in a separate California Environmental Quality Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-277 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Air Quality Act (CEQA) discussion at the end of this chapter and may be used to inform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision. The four strategies set forth by FHWA to lessen climate change impacts do correlate with efforts that the State has undertaken and is undertaking to deal with transportation and climate change; the strategies include improved transportation system efficiency, cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles, and reduction in the growth of vehicle hours traveled. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-278 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise 2.2.7 Noise 2.2.7.1 REGULATORY SETTING The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide the broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The requirements for noise analysis and consideration of noise abatement and/or mitigation, however, differ between NEPA and CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a strictly baseline versus build analysis to assess whether a proposed project will have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project unless such measures are not feasible. National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772 For highway transportation projects with FHWA (and the Department, as assigned) involvement, the federal -Aid Highway Act of 1970 and the associated implementing regulations (23 CFR 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations contain noise abatement criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The NAC differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC for residences (67 dBA) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). Table 2-601ists the noise abatement criteria for use in the NEPA-23 CFR 772 analysis. Table 2-60. Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category NAC, Hourly A- Weighted Noise Level, Leq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B' 67 (Exterior) Residential. C' 67 (Exterior) Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. D 52 (Interior) Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 (Exterior) Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A—D or F. F No NAC—reporting only Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical, etc.), and warehousing. G No NAC—reporting only Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-279 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Figure 2-291ists the noise levels of common activities to enable readers to compare the actual and predicted highway noise -levels discussed in this section with common activities. Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level OSA) Common Indoor Activities .let Fly -over at 300m (1000 ft) Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), at 80 km (50 mph) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing C� 000 ao Rock Band Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 it) Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Large Business Office Dishwasher Next Room Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Library Bedroom at Night, Convert Hall (Background) Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Figure 2-29 Noise Levels of Common Activities According to the Department's Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the predicted future noise level with the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more increase) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the NAC. Approaching the NAC is defined as coming within 1 dBA of the NAC. If it is determined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and feasible at the time of final design are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. This document discusses noise abatement measures that would likely be incorporated in the project. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-280 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise The Depai tinent's Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically an engineering concern. A minimum 7 dBA reduction in the future noise level must be achieved for an abatement measure to be considered feasible. Other considerations include topography, access requirements, other noise sources, and safety considerations. The reasonableness determination is basically a cost -benefit analysis. Factors used in determining whether a proposed noise abatement measure is reasonable include: residents' acceptance and the cost per benefited residence. In addition, barriers should be designed to intercept the line of sight from the exhaust stack of a truck to the first tier of receptors, as stated in Caltrans' Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100 (Caltrans 2014b). The Protocol defines the procedure for assessing the reasonableness of noise barriers from a cost perspective. A cost -per -residence allowance is calculated for each benefited residence (i.e., residences that receive at least 5 dB of noise reduction from a noise barrier that provides a 7 dB reduction for at least one receptor). The allowance is $71,000 per benefited residence. Total allowances are calculated by multiplying the cost per residence by the number of benefited residences. 2.2.7.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The primary source used in the preparation of this section is the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Noise Study Report (NSR), July 2015 (Caltrans 2015b) and the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR), July 2015 (Caltrans 2015c). Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or annoying sound that is typically associated with human activity and that interferes with normal activities. Sound levels are measured and expressed in decibels (dB). The human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies, being less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to medium frequencies, which correspond with human speech. In response, the A weighted noise level (or scale) has been developed. This A -weighted sound level is called the "noise level," which is referenced in units of dBA. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale; a doubling of sound energy results in a three- dBA increase in noise levels. The human ear, however, does not typically notice changes in noise levels of less than three dBA. The equivalent noise level (Leg) is the average A weighted sound level measured over a given time interval. Leg can be measured over any time period, but is typically measured for 1-hour periods and is expressed as Leg(h). A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the project. Land uses in the project area were categorized by land use type; Activity Category, as defined in Table 2-60, Noise Abatement Criteria; and the extent of frequent human use. As stated in the Protocol, all developed land uses were evaluated in the analysis; land uses in the study area fall under Activity Categories B through G. However, the focus was on outdoor locations with frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, the impact analysis focused on locations with defined outdoor activity areas, such as residential backyards, athletic fields/playgrounds, outdoor eating areas, and recreational parks. At four Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-281 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise noise -sensitive receptors (two churches, a school, and a library) that did not have defined outdoor activity areas, interior noise levels were considered. Areas of frequent human use located along the project study corridor/alignment fall under Activity Categories A through D. The project study corridor was broken down into six segments. Those six segments and the land uses found along the project study corridor are shown in Figure 2-30 and are discussed below: • Area A: Area A is the section of project study corridor north of Cajalco Road and south of Ontario Avenue. The northbound side of the freeway consists of undeveloped lands (Activity Category G), retail uses (Activity Category F), active sports area (Activity Category C) and single-family residential uses (Activity Category B). The southbound side of the freeway consists of retail land uses (Activity Category F), churches (Activity Categories C and D), single-family residential uses (Activity Category B) and undeveloped lands (Activity Category G). • Area B: Area B is the section of project study corridor north of Ontario Avenue and south of SR-91. The northbound side of the freeway consists of a hotel and outdoor dining area of a restaurant (Activity Category E), retail land uses (Activity Category F), active sports area (Activity Category C), a school (Activity Category D), and single-family residential uses (Activity Category B). The southbound side of the freeway consists of outdoor dining/seating areas (Activity Category E) and industrial land uses (Activity Category F). • Area C: Area C is the section of project study corridor north of SR-91 and south of 2nd Street. The northbound side of the freeway consists of single-family residential (Activity Category B), recreational (a golf course [Activity Category C]), and undeveloped lands (Activity Category G). The southbound side of the freeway consists of churches (Activity Categories C and D), a motel (Activity Category E), other developed land uses (Activity Category F), and single-family residential uses (Activity Category B). • Area D: Area D is the section of project study corridor north of 2nd Street and south of 6th Street. The northbound side of the freeway consists of single-family residential land uses (Activity Category B). The southbound side of the freeway consists of a motel and outdoor seating/dining areas (Activity Category E), retail land uses (Activity Category F), and single- family residential uses (Activity Category B). • Area E: Area E is the section of project study corridor north of 6th Street and south of Limonite Avenue. The northbound side of the freeway consists of single-family residential (Activity Category B), retail and other developed land uses (Activity Category F), and undeveloped lands (Activity Category G). The southbound side of the freeway consists of undeveloped lands (Activity Category G), a proposed sports/equestrian facility (Activity Category C), a library (Activity Category D) and single-family residential uses (Activity Category B). • Area F: Area F is the section of project study corridor north of Limonite Avenue and south of the San Bernardino County line. The northbound side of the freeway consists of undeveloped lands (Activity Category G), agricultural uses (Activity Category F), including a ranch house, and industrial (warehousing [(Activity Category F]) land uses. The southbound side of the freeway consists of undeveloped lands (Activity Category G), multi- family residential (Activity Category B), single-family residential (Activity Category B), Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-282 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise agricultural (Activity Category F), and industrial (warehousing [Activity Category B]) land uses. Noise Measurement Sites Existing noise levels were measured from July 16 to August 22, 2013 and February 19 and 25, 2015 using Caltrans-approved methodology for sampling noise. Additional noise measurements from previous studies, for projects along I-15 alignment, conducted on April 1, 2009, October 25, 2011, October 31, 2012, and May 16 and 23, 2013, were also used because they were conducted along the I-15 project study corridor and represent areas of frequent human use. Short-term monitoring (10 minutes in duration each) was conducted at 90 locations along the project area, and long-term monitoring (10-minute intervals taken for 24 hours or more) was conducted at nine locations (LT1 through LT9). The measured and modeled locations are identified in Figure 2-30. Noise monitoring sites (ST-1 through ST-81) were selected to be representative of ambient noise conditions near the I-15 project study corridor. Table 2-61 summarizes the results of the short- term noise monitoring conducted in the project study area. Table 2-61. Summary of Short -Term Measurements Receiver Address Land Uses/ Activity Category Start Date/Time Duration (minutes) Ley (dBA) ST-1 20198 Orange Street, Corona CA Residential/B 7-16-2013/9:50 a.m. 10:00 69.8 7-16-2013/10:00 a.m. 10:00 69.5 7-16-2013/10:10 a.m. 10:00 69.4 ST-2 20045 Bedford Canyon Road, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-16-2013/9:50 a.m. 10:00 62.1 7-16-2013/10:10 a.m. 10:00 61.6 7-16-2013/10:20 a.m. 10:00 61.5 ST-3 Target Parking Lot Commercial/F 7-16-2013/11:00 a.m. 10:00 58.8 7-16-2013/11:10 a.m. 10:00 59.2 ST-4 7540 Liberty Avenue, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-16-2013/11:00 a.m. 10:00 65.4 7-16-2013/11:10 a.m. 10:00 64.5 ST-5 7429 El Cerrito Road, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-16-2013/1:20 p.m. 10:00 62.2 7-16-2013/1:30 p.m. 10:00 60.8 ST-6 7430 Liberty Avenue, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-16-2013/1:20 p.m. 10:00 62.1 7-16-2013/1:30 p.m. 10:00 62.6 ST-7 El Cerrito Sports Park, 7480 Rudell Road, Corona, CA Sports Park/C 7-16-2013/2:50 p.m. 10:00 59.2 7-16-2013/3:00 p.m. 10:00 58.2 ST-8 El Cerrito Sports Park, 7480 Rudell Road, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-16-2013/2:50 p.m. 10:00 65.4 7-16-2013/3:00 p.m. 10:00 64.7 ST-9 7389 Calico Circle, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-17-2013/10:15 a.m. 10:00 62.1 7-17-2013/10:25 a.m. 10:00 62.5 ST-10 7329 Calico Circle, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-17-2013/10:15 a.m. 10:00 59.3 7-17-2013/10:30 a.m. 10:00 59.4 ST-11 19402 Dry Gulch Road, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-17-2013/11:25 a.m. 10:00 72.2 7-17-2013/11:35 a.m. 10:00 72.0 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-283 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Receiver Address Land Uses/ Activity Category Start Date/Time Duration (minutes) Leg (dBA) ST-12 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, 1510 Taber Street, Corona, CA Church/C 7-17-2013/11:25 a.m. 10:00 67.1 7-17-2013/11:35 a.m. 10:00 66.3 ST-13 2308 State Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-18-2013/9:05 a.m. 10:00 70.5 7-18-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 70.6 ST-14 7261 Piute Creek Drive, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-18-2013/9:05 a.m. 10:00 66.8 7-18-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 67.7 ST-17 18901 State Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-18-2013/11:10 a.m. 10:00 63.1 7-18-2013/11:35 a.m. 10:00 62.6 ST-18 Spring Hills Suites, 2025 Compton Ave, Corona, CA Hotel/E 7-18-2013/2:00 p.m. 10:00 69.3 7-18-2013/2:10 p.m. 10:00 71.0 ST-19 7137 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-18-2013/2:00 p.m. 10:00 69.0 7-18-2013/2:10 p.m. 10:00 70.3 ST-20 Kap Medical Parking Lot, 1395 Pico Street, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-18-2013/2:50 p.m. 10:00 69.3 7-18-2013/3:00 p.m. 10:00 70.0 ST-21 7336 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-18-2013/2:50 p.m. 10:00 73.1 7-18-2013/3:10 p.m. 10:00 73.6 ST-22 1870 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-24-213/8:55 a.m. 10:00 71.8 7-24-213/9:05 a.m. 10:00 72.1 ST-23 1730 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-24-213/9:55 a.m. 10:00 61.2 7-24-213/10:05 a.m. 10:00 61.9 ST-24 1678 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-24-213/10:45 a.m. 10:00 62.4 7-24-213/10:55 a.m. 10:00 63.1 7-24-213/12:25 p.m. 10:00 63.5 7-24-213/12:35 p.m. 10:00 64.8 ST-25 1226 Magnolia Avenue, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-24-213/11:45 a.m. 10:00 63.1 7-24-213/11:55 a.m. 10:00 63.9 ST-26 1181 California Avenue, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-24-213/1:55 p.m. 10:00 73.1 7-24-213/2:05 p.m. 10:00 72.9 ST-27 1300 El Sobrante Road, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-25-2013/8:30 a.m. 10:00 63.8 7-25-2013/8:45 a.m. 10:00 62.8 ST-28 1015 Montecito Drive, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-25-2013/9:35 a.m. 10:00 66.3 7-25-2013/9:50 a.m. 10:00 65.0 ST-29 1285 Magnolia Avenue, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-25-2013/10:35 a.m. 10:00 66.0 7-25-2013/10:45 a.m. 10:00 66.4 ST-30 300 El Sobrante Road, Corona, CA Commercial/B 7-25-2013/11:20 a.m. 10:00 68.4 ST-31 1320 Cresta Road, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-25-2013/12:50 p.m. 10:00 71.3 7-25-2013/1:00 p.m. 10:00 70.4 ST-32 344 Termino Avenue, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-25-2013/1:30 p.m. 10:00 74.1 7-25-2013/1:45 p.m. 10:00 73.8 ST-33 805 Laguna Drive, Corona, CA Residential/B 7-25-2013/2:15 p.m. 10:00 60.2 7-25-2013/2:30 p.m. 10:00 60.6 ST-34 515 Newhall Drive, Residential/B 8-6-2013/10:10 a.m. 10:00 56.5 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-284 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Receiver Address Land Uses/ Activity Category Start Date/Time Duration (minutes) Leg (dBA) Corona, CA 8-6-2013/10:25 a.m. 10:00 57.0 ST-35 649 Mesa Drive, Corona, CA Residential/B 8-6-2013/10:50 a.m. 10:00 55.2 8-6-2013/11:05 a.m. 10:00 54.3 ST-36 405 Newhall Drive, Corona, CA Residential/B 8-6-2013/11:40 a.m. 10:00 57.4 8-6-2013/11:50 a.m. 10:00 58.8 ST-37 822 Corona Avenue, Corona, CA Residential/B 8-6-2013/2:15 p.m. 10:00 64.6 8-6-2013/2:25 p.m. 10:00 64.9 ST-38 240 Hidden Valley Parkway, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-6-2013/3:05 p.m. 10:00 61.9 8-6-2013/3:20 p.m. 10:00 62.3 ST-39 890 Mandevilla Way, Corona, CA Residential/B 8-7-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 62.0 8-7-2013/9:25 a.m. 10:00 60.9 ST-40 674 Barbre Lane, Corona, CA Residential/B 8-7-2013/10:25 a.m. 10:00 58.0 8-7-2013/10:35 a.m. 10:00 55.3 8-7-2013/10:48 a.m. 10:00 56.3 ST-41 1377 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA Commercial/B 8-7-2013/11:52 a.m. 10:00 68.8 8-7-2013/12:02 p.m. 10:00 67.8 ST-42 942 Oliviamae Circle, Corona, CA Residential/B 8-7-2013/2:20 p.m. 10:00 62.4 8-7-2013/2:32 p.m. 10:00 61.9 ST-43 1461 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA Commercial/B 8-8-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 64.4 8-8-2013/9:27 a.m. 10:00 64.0 ST-44 1375 Valley View Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-8-2013/10:07 a.m. 10:00 56.9 8-8-2013/10:18 a.m. 10:00 55.6 ST-45 1574 Valley View Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-8-2013/10:45 a.m. 10:00 60.9 8-8-2013/10:57 a.m. 10:00 61.2 ST-46 1778 Valley View Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-8-2013/11:33 a.m. 10:00 56.4 8-8-2013/11:45 a.m. 10:00 58.2 ST-47 1695 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA Commercial/F 8-8-2013/2:42 p.m. 10:00 61.2 8-8-2013/2:52 p.m. 10:00 60.8 ST-48 2195 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA Commercial/F 8-13-2013/8:50 a.m. 10:00 64.5 8-13-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 64.0 ST-49 2056 Valley View Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-13-2013/9:38 a.m. 10:00 58.7 8-13-2013/9:50 a.m. 10:00 57.6 ST-50 2296 Valley View Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-13-2013/10:08 a.m. 10:00 60.8 8-13-2013/10:20 a.m. 10:00 60.9 ST-51 End of street, 1542 Wraymar Lane, Norco, CA Residential/B 4-1-2009/10:23 a.m. 10:00 60.9 4-1-2009/10:37 a.m. 10:00 61.2 ST-52 1546 Smokewood Drive, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-13-2013/2:28 p.m. 10:00 59.5 8-13-2013/2:40 p.m. 10:00 60.4 ST-53 Vacant Lot next to 1643 Elm Drive, Norco, CA Undeveloped/G 10-25-2011/2:50 p.m. 10:00 56.9 10-25-2011/3:00 p.m. 10:00 56.5 ST-54 1500 4th Street, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-14-2013/10:08 a.m. 10:00 62.2 8-14-2013/10:15 a.m. 10:00 62.1 ST-55 3156 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-14-2013/11:18 a.m. 10:00 59.0 8-14-2013/11:30 a.m. 10:00 59.8 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-285 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Receiver Address Land Uses/ Activity Category Start Date/Time Duration (minutes) Leg (dBA) ST-56 3131 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 4-1-2009/3:17 p.m. 10:00 58.7 4-1-2009/3:31 p.m. 10:00 59.0 ST-57 3520 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-14-2013/1:08 p.m. 10:00 56.5 8-14-2013/1:20 p.m. 10:00 57.9 ST-58 3521 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-14-2013/1:54 p.m. 10:00 68.9 8-14-2013/2:05 p.m. 10:00 68.8 ST-59 3847 Old Hamner, Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-15-2013/10:20 a.m. 10:00 60.0 8-15-2013/11:21 a.m. 10:00 59.9 ST-60 Vacant Lot next to 3838 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 4-1-2009/8:59 a.m. 10:00 61.7 4-1-2009/9:16 a.m. 10:00 62.1 ST-61 4080 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-15-2013/2:22 p.m. 10:00 63.1 8-15-2013/2:33 p.m. 10:00 62.2 ST-62 4294 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-20-2013/10:12 a.m. 10:00 60.4 8-20-2013/10:24 a.m. 10:00 59.9 ST-63 4347 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-20-2013/10:40 a.m. 10:00 58.1 8-20-2013/10:51 a.m. 10:00 58.9 ST-64 4336 Old Hamner Road, Norco, CA Residential/B 8-20-2013/12:00 p.m. 10:00 68.5 8-20-2013/12:12 p.m. 10:00 68.3 ST-65 7186 Rivertrails Drive, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 8-20-2013/12:51 p.m. 10:00 62.1 8-20-2013/1:02 p.m. 10:00 62.7 ST-66 7088 Rivertrails Drive, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 8-20-2013/3:04 p.m. 10:00 63.9 8-20-2013/3:16 p.m. 10:00 64.9 ST-67 6946 Riverrun Court, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 8-21-2013/10:00 a.m. 10:00 60.1 8-21-2013/10:12 a.m. 10:00 60.4 ST-68 6722 Leanne Street, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 8-21-2013/10:52 a.m. 10:00 58.4 8-21-2013/11:03 a.m. 10:00 58.6 Limonite ST-9 12242 Ashcroft Circle, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 5-16-2009/3:00 p.m. 10:00 58.5 5-16-2009/3:10 p.m. 10:00 59.4 Limonite ST-3 6440 Harrow Street, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 10-31-2013/2:00 p.m. 10:00 62.4 10-31-2012/3:10 p.m. 10:00 62.0 Limonite ST-13 Fitness 19 Parking Lot, 6429 Pats Ranch Road, Mira Loma, CA Commercial/F 5-23-2012/10:12 a.m. 10:00 58.3 5-23-2012/10:22 a.m. 10:00 59.1 Limonite ST-2 Lowe's South Side Parking Lot, 6413 Pats Ranch Road, Mira Loma, CA Commercial/F 10-31-2012/11:50 a.m. 10:00 66.5 10-31-2012/12:00 p.m. 10:00 66.4 10-31-2012/12:10 p.m. 10:00 66.8 Limonite ST-10 6317 Limonite, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 5-16-2013/2:55 p.m. 10:00 59.2 5-16-2013/3:05 p.m. 10:00 58.3 Limonite ST-1 12281 Limonite, Mira Loma, CA Commercial/B 10-31-2013/11:00 a.m. 10:00 66.0 10-31-2013/11:10 a.m. 10:00 66.0 Limonite ST-8 Open Agricultural Field Undeveloped/G 5-16-2013/12:00 p.m. 10:00 78.0 5-16-2013/12:10 p.m. 10:00 77.4 Limonite Swan Lake Mobile Residential/B 5-16-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 61.2 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-286 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Receiver Address Land Uses/ Activity Category Start Date/Time Duration (minutes) Leg (dBA) ST-4 Home Park, 5800 Hamner Ave, Mira Loma, CA 5-16-2013/9:30 a.m. 10:00 61.4 Limonite ST-5 Swan Lake Mobile Home Park, 5800 Hamner Ave, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 5-16-2013/9:15 a.m. 10:00 62.0 5-16-2013/9:35 a.m. 10:00 62.8 Limonite ST-6 Swan Lake Mobile Home Park #453, 5800 Hamner Ave, Mira Loma, CA Residential/B 10-16-2013/10:30 a.m. 10:00 58.2 10-16-2013/10:40 a.m. 10:00 50.3 Limonite ST-7 5772 East Homecoming Circle, Eastvale, CA Residential/B 5-16-2013/12:00 p.m. 10:00 49.7 5-16-2013/12:15 p.m. 10:00 48.7 ST-69 5497 Daybreak Drive, Eastvale, CA Residential/B 8-21-2013/12:56 p.m. 10:00 63.3 8-21-2013/1:07 p.m. 10:00 63.3 ST-70 5425 Daybreak Drive, Eastvale, CA Residential/B 8-21-2013/1:25 p.m. 10:00 61.1 8-21-2013/1:37 p.m. 10:00 60.5 ST-71 12087 London Drive, Mira Loma, CA Industrial/F 8-22-2013/9:50 a.m. 10:00 61.1 8-22-2013/10:02 a.m. 10:00 60.9 ST-72 Open Agricultural Field south of 4155 Wineville Avenue, Mira Loma, CA Undeveloped/G 8-22-2013/11:04 a.m. 10:00 71.0 8-22-2014/11:15 a.m. 10:00 71.9 ST-73 Open field in the southwest corner of Cajalco and 1-15 Undeveloped/G 2-25-2015/12:40 p.m. 10:00 67.8 2-25-2015/12:53 p.m. 10:00 69.4 ST-74 2243 Eagle Glen Parkway, Corona CA Commercial/F 2-25-2015/1:24 p.m. 10:00 64.7 2-25-2015/1:36 p.m. 10:00 64.8 ST-75 2305 Compton Avenue, Corona CA Restaurant/E 2-25-2015/2:35 p.m. 10:00 59.4 2-25-2015/2:48 p.m. 10:00 59.9 ST-76 Open field in the southwest corner of Cajalco and 1-15 Undeveloped/G 2-19-2015/2:03 p.m. 10:00 74.3 2-19-2015/2:15 p.m. 10:00 73.7 ST-77 Open lot next the 1631 3rd Street, Norco CA Undeveloped/G 2-25-2015/3:50 p.m. 10:00 64.6 2-25-2015/4:02 p.m. 10:00 65.2 ST-78 3841 Old Hamner Road, Norco CA Restaurant/E 2-25-2015/10:14 a.m. 10:00 64.0 2-25-2015/10:28 a.m. 10:00 63.2 ST-79 Open lot near 4138 Old Hamner Road, Norco CA Undeveloped/G 2-25-2015/10:56 a.m. 10:00 59.3 2-25-2015/11:09 a.m. 10:00 57.6 ST-80 Open lot north of 68th Street, Norco CA Undeveloped/G 2-19-2015/1:09 p.m. 10:00 73.5 2-19-2015/1:12 p.m. 10:00 73.5 ST-81 Open space near SB Off -Ramp for Cantu Galleano Undeveloped/G 2-19-2015/9:46 a.m. 10:00 70.7 2-19-2015/10:03 a.m. 10:00 70.4 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-287 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-288 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project i IFS to L^7f f7Ylij 1.�1 ci i G AlI:RIiT Tel6y1=4S3a1:1U:1GLFYc3LsY.11=MM1MyellaSMIMO 7 Miles Source: ESRI World Imagery (2010) Figure 2-30 - Index Map Analysis Areas, Noise Monitoring and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-290 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS_EA\Fig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier F}j Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location (01 Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Industrial Figure 2-30 Sheet 1 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-292 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS_EATig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 Legend Z EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way ® Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped ▪ Industrial ▪ Recreation ▪ Residential Sydney Blue 4J� 2 Plume Grass 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 2 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-294 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS EA\Fig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls Short Term Measurement Location Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Institutional Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 3 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-296 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K A I rvi n e \G I S\ P roje cts\ H D R\ lol 111 1 1 _ 11 Legend Z EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Residential 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 4 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-298 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project KAIrvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATig2 3 lol Legend Z EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 5 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-300 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project \mapdoc\IS EA\F Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped ▪ Commercial ▪ Industrial 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 6 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-302 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\Noise\Fig5 1 Noise.mxd Date: 7/15/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) M7A *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Z EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location O Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr J Agriculture/Undeveloped I. Commercial 1. Industrial AM Institutional Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 7 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-304 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project pvmrta�H�y�. .1aill ItaRir _ • Iia•uIs�.�a.�`� Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way Kfg Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped x I=r i I Industrial Institutional Recreation Residential 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 8 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-306 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) • y *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr —I Agriculture/Undeveloped Institutional ▪ Recreation ▪ Residential M22 D Figure 2-30 Sheet 9 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-308 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATi92 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/15/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier x Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls = SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location 0 Proposed State Right -of -Way ffM Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Institutional Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 10 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-310 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project rn LO N Lr KAI rvine\G IS\Projects\H D R\00537_08\ma pdoc\IS_EATig 2_30_Noise.m at 1 Hulot's 1=i 11 1111110M ; R i Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Kfg Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)' Agriculture/Undeveloped NM Commercial ME Industrial Institutional —7 Residential x Iz 0 r— 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 11 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-312 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATi92 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way ® Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped 0 Commercial IM Industrial Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 12 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-314 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project C N 0 30 Noise.mxd zte:7/ 0 50 100 Feet M39A 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier = Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls = SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location e Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location FM Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Point Loma Nazarene` Figure 2-30 Sheet 13 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-316 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS EATig2 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped ▪ Commercial ▪ Industrial ▪ Institutional ▪ Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 14 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-318 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project '.A�i�i1R-1iC369�'S. 1 . ill 7.YCYiI7:11id:Ti s_.YiCiIia• 5F.7C:fiiilL7yIQII.'3'i.YliR EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way KM Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)" Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial RE Institutional Recreation OM Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 15 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-320 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project KAIrvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS EA\Fis 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) j4M44B *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way Kfg Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)' Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial a Industrial Recreation Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 16 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-322 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way Kfg Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Recreation Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 17 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-324 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2\00537_08\mapdoc\IS_EA\Fig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/15/2015 25119 Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way ffM Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Recreation Residential I 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 18 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-326 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way M Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped ▪ Commercial ▪ Industrial ▪ Institutional ▪ Residential 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 19 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-328 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project N lr, O N M r N t0 X E d 'o z 0 M N O) IL Q W N U O a m E ro 0 r M Its O O ip U N O a 3 d c •Z Y Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location 0 Short Term Measurement Location Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial ▪ Industrial ▪ Institutional ▪ Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 20 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-330 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 7 Noise.mxd Da mapdocAIS_EAAI KAI rvine\G I S\Projects\H D Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier m Existing Noise Wall m 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls m SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier �i Modeled Receiver Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)" ] Agriculture/Undeveloped 11. Commercial Industrial Institutional 1 Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) —' *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 21 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-332 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Legend R\00537 08\mapdoc\IS_EATig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/15/2015 25119 K:AlrvineAGISVPr, I x x EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way ffM Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)" Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Residential O .Wih�W�Dr=---- 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 22 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-334 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATig2 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/15/2015 25119 G 4Th St] r Ending Mile Starting d G Mile ii DnateN3 arrier a20,[90z3 asible Q03 Fe Design Goal Length: Heights: Heights: M !TIM ' .1'"1111151M1f.IF` Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Institutional Residential x x 1 qui 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 23 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-336 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS_EATig2_30_Noise .n xd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial ▪ Industrial ▪ Institutional ▪ Recreation Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 24 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-338 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project m cv 0 N r N I6 O X E N O Z O NI O) li Q W Cn U O O N E OD O M up O O cC 0 2 'Co U N O a` in 'm Y 'M.�� fi 411 f! Taftrst , z�i1 Obl 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 6Tb St rn ui *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way Kfg Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)' Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreation Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 25 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-340 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way M Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr J Agriculture/Undeveloped Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 26 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-342 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project r . .1. ill I: as ' • CLia• * / --mar EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location Long Term Measurement Location Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)* 0 50 100 Feet 200 A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) "Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 27 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-344 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project rvineAGISVProjects\HDR\00537_08\mapdocUS_EA\Fig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 Legend Z EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall Z 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls Z SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier • Modeled Receiver Location • Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location 0 Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 28 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-346 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project \mapdoc\IS EATig2 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 ' 1111AMI1131111 EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)' Agriculture/Undeveloped Recreation Residential iess imartwa '-ill - ill ...._ ®I �Y! 116 tl ®{ ism 3l e° 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 29 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-348 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GISTrolects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATio2 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr 0 Agriculture/Undeveloped ME Industrial i Recreation Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) 'Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 30 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-350 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project :d Date: 7/13/2015 25119 lol Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr J Agriculture/Undeveloped ME Industrial Residential 11 ♦• C) N 0 0 E i i t M141-Limonite 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 31 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-352 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EA\Fig2 30 Noise.mxd Date:7/13/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier = Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls = SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)" Agriculture/Undeveloped Residential I a m IV t ;r,,4 s) A If . +1 ae � � 1 e' ti , 1-1 Vi { � Figure 2-30 Sheet 32 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-354 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS_EATig2_30_Noise.mxd Date:7/13/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped ME Industrial Residential Figure 2-30 Sheet 33 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-356 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 12_30_Nase.mxd Date:7/13/2015 25119 rotects\H DR EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location n Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)' Agriculture/Undeveloped ME Industrial 1 Residential 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. i �s / ���4073 Figure 2-30 Sheet 34 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-358 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Z EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped Industrial K A I rvi n e \G I ST ro je cts\ H D F 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 35 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-360 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project J_ Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Agriculture/Undeveloped ME Commercial NM Industrial 0 air ■ I x _ i 1 y • a it L e 4Mi AL• "NM .1.111 MA 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 36 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-362 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATig2 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) `Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location 0 Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr J Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial r Industrial Figure 2-30 Sheet 37 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-364 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EA\Fig2 30 Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 III �M1 � ulI I' - VIM NUR / CAIIII -AII EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr ▪ Commercial ▪ Industrial Institutional 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 38 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-366 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\HDR\00537_08\mapdoc\IS_EATig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location p Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` —1 Agriculture/Undeveloped ▪ Industrial ▪ Institutional 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Note: For full extents p ease refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 39 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-368 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project \GIS\Projects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EA\Fic 30 Noise.mxr AMRII1r01i 0 1 �s i ! � 11� 1 111 si r e e Legend x x x lol EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feet)` Agriculture/Undeveloped Industrial • �. 01101114 0 50 100 200 N Feet A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 40 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-370 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project rn N LC, O N M 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91 CIP Constructed Barrier Modeled Receiver Location Short Term Measurement Location Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Industrial Institutional Figure 2-30 Sheet 41 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-372 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project KAIrvine\GISTrolects\HDR\00537 08\mapdoc\IS EATig2 30 Noise.m 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls F}j Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location �01 Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr L Agriculture/Undeveloped MI Commercial 'NE Industrial Figure 2-30 Sheet 42 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-374 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 11_ _32.!5;RMYZ_Ei 3 • I ' 6 , 1, rh. I dB Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIP Constructed Barrier M Modeled Receiver Location e Short Term Measurement Location ED Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr 1 Agriculture/Undeveloped Commercial Industrial : r • 4tis ;••• ; - • - $ • - ' " t _ • t • • +. ♦ lir qv -lar• MC' 0 50 100 Feet 200 A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) "Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 43 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-376 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project s EATig2_30_Noise.mxd Date: 7/13/2015 25119 K:\ I rvi n e \G I ST roje cts\ H D R\0053 7_0 8 Legend EA 0E150 12 Foot Barrier Z Existing Noise Wall 1-15 Evaluated Noise Walls Z SR-91 Designed Walls SR-91CIPConstructed Barrier ® Modeled Receiver Location ® Short Term Measurement Location ® Long Term Measurement Location Proposed State Right -of -Way Noise Study Area Boundary (500 Feetr Commercial Industrial 0 • yf So • rrr i 0 50 100 Feet 200 N A Source: SCAG (2005); HDR (2013); ESRI World Imagery (2010) *Note: For full extents please refer to Appendix D-5. Figure 2-30 Sheet 44 Analysis Areas, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and Locations of Evaluated Noise Barriers Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise This page intentionally left blank. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-378 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Long-term monitoring was conducted at nine locations (LT 1 through LT9) along the alignment. These long-term measurement locations and peak hour noise measurements are shown in Table 2-62 below. Table 2-62. Long -Term Noise Measurement Data Summary Site ID Area Measurement Location Date Peak Noise Hour Leg (dBA) Quietest Hour Leg (dBA) LT1 A 20285 Bedford Canyon Road, Corona, CA 7/16/2013— 7/17/2013 66.9 (6:00-7:00) 59.3 (1:00-2:00) LT2 A 7261 Piute Creek Drive, Corona, CA 7/16/2013— 7/17/2013 68.3 (17:00-18:00) 58.3 (1:00-3:00) LT3 B 7137 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA 7/17/2013— 7/18/2013 69.4 (14:00-15:00) 59.4 (2:00-3:00) LT4 B 1870 Bel Air Street, Corona, CA 7/24/2013— 7/25/2013 75.6 (6:00-7:00) 67.9 (2:00-3:00) LT5 C 649 Mesa Drive 8/6/2013— 8/7/2013 67.0 (7:00-8:00) 56.3 (2:00-3:00) LT6 C Undeveloped land adjacent to 1598 1st Street, Norco, CA 8/7/2013— 8/8/2013 65.8 (15:00-16:00) 56.2 (2:00-3:00) LT7 D 3156 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA 8/14/2013— 8/15/2013 63.9 (5:00-6:00) 56.8 (1:00-2:00) LT8 E 4367 Sierra Avenue, Norco, CA 8/20/2013— 8/21 /2013 74.5 (6:00-7:00) 65.7 (1:00-2:00) LT9 F 5497 Daybreak Drive, Norco, CA 8/21/2013— 8/22/2013 66.0 (7:00-8:00) 57.3 (1:00-2:00) These sites were selected in order to document the diurnal traffic noise pattern, which was dominated by traffic noise on I-15. The purpose of the long-term noise measurement was to determine the changes in noise levels within the project area throughout a typical day. Using the peak hour identified by the long term noise measurements helped to identify the peak hour traffic volume (AM peak hour or PM peak hour dependent on the peak hour identified in the long term measurement) from the approved Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) to be analyzed in the Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5) modeling. The long-term sound level data were collected from Tuesday, July 16, 2013, to Thursday, August 22, 2013. Long-term noise measurements were only conducted on Tuesday through Thursday as directed by the 2013 Caltrans' Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS). The results of the long-term monitoring are summarized in Tables 2-63 through 2-71. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-379 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-63. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT1 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) July 16, 2013 10:00:00 65.0 -3.3 11:00:00 65.9 -2.4 12:00:00 67.2 -1.1 13:00:00 67.5 -0.7 14:00:00 67.7 -0.6 15:00:00 67.9 -0.4 16:00:00 67.6 -0.6 17:00:00 68.3 0.0 18:00:00 67.3 -0.9 19:00:00 66.6 -1.7 20:00:00 64.7 -3.6 21:00:00 63.7 -4.6 22:00:00 63.4 -4.9 23:00:00 61.5 -6.7 July 17, 2013 0:00:00 59.7 -8.5 1:00:00 58.3 -10.0 2:00:00 58.3 -9.9 3:00:00 60.5 -7.8 4:00:00 64.7 -3.6 5:00:00 65.6 -2.7 6:00:00 66.5 -1.8 7:00:00 61.3 -6.9 8:00:00 64.0 -4.3 9:00:00 66.2 -2.0 Maximum 68.3 Minimum 58.3 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-63, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 68.3 dBA Leq(h) during the 5:00 to 6:00 PM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-380 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-64. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT2 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Ley[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) July 16, 2013 9:00:00 66.3 -0.6 10:00:00 66.2 -0.7 11:00:00 66.5 -0.4 12:00:00 66.2 -0.6 13:00:00 66.4 -0.5 14:00:00 66.6 -0.3 15:00:00 65.8 -1.1 16:00:00 63.7 -3.2 17:00:00 64.4 -2.4 18:00:00 65.5 -1.4 19:00:00 65.1 -1.7 20:00:00 64.7 -2.2 21:00:00 63.4 -3.5 22:00:00 60.4 -6.5 23:00:00 59.7 -7.2 July 17, 2013 0:00:00 59.5 -7.4 1:00:00 59.3 -7.6 2:00:00 59.8 -7.1 3:00:00 62.2 -4.7 4:00:00 64.6 -2.3 5:00:00 63.8 -3.1 6:00:00 66.9 0.0 7:00:00 65.9 -1.0 8:00:00 65.9 -1.0 Maximum 66.9 Minimum 59.3 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-64, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 66.9 dBA Ley(h) during the 6:00 to 7:00 AM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-381 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-65. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT3 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) July 17, 2013 14:00:00 69.4 0.0 15:00:00 69.1 -0.3 16:00:00 68.0 -1.4 17:00:00 67.9 -1.5 18:00:00 67.9 -1.5 19:00:00 68.8 -0.6 20:00:00 68.2 -1.2 21:00:00 67.9 -1.5 22:00:00 67.4 -2.0 23:00:00 66.0 -3.4 July 18, 2013 0:00:00 64.8 -4.6 1:00:00 60.8 -8.7 2:00:00 59.4 -10.0 3:00:00 62.2 -7.2 4:00:00 65.8 -3.6 5:00:00 64.8 -4.6 6:00:00 66.5 -2.9 7:00:00 66.9 -2.6 8:00:00 67.9 -1.5 9:00:00 68.3 -1.2 10:00:00 68.3 -1.1 11:00:00 68.0 -1.4 12:00:00 68.1 -1.3 13:00:00 69.1 -0.3 Maximum 69.4 Minimum 59.4 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-65, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 69.4 dBA Leg(h) during the 2:00 to 3:00 PM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-382 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-66. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT4 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) July 24, 2013 10:00:00 73.1 -2.5 11:00:00 74.4 -1.2 12:00:00 74.2 -1.4 13:00:00 74.8 -0.7 14:00:00 74.7 -0.8 15:00:00 75.1 -0.5 16:00:00 74.6 -1.0 17:00:00 74.1 -1.5 18:00:00 74.6 -1.0 19:00:00 74.2 -1.3 20:00:00 73.5 -2.1 21:00:00 72.8 -2.7 22:00:00 71.7 -3.9 23:00:00 69.9 -5.7 July 25, 2013 0:00:00 68.4 -7.2 1:00:00 68.0 -7.6 2:00:00 67.9 -7.7 3:00:00 70.1 -5.5 4:00:00 73.5 -2.1 5:00:00 74.7 -0.9 6:00:00 75.6 0.0 7:00:00 75.3 -0.3 8:00:00 74.8 -0.8 9:00:00 74.7 -0.9 Maximum 75.6 Minimum 67.9 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-66, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 75.6 dBA Leq(h) during the 6:00 to 7:00 AM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-383 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-67. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT5 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) August 6, 2013 10:00:00 60.2 -6.8 11:00:00 60.0 -7.0 12:00:00 58.7 -8.3 13:00:00 58.1 -8.9 14:00:00 58.7 -8.3 15:00:00 59.9 -7.1 16:00:00 60.4 -6.6 17:00:00 60.5 -6.5 18:00:00 60.4 -6.6 19:00:00 60.6 -6.4 20:00:00 60.0 -7.0 21:00:00 59.2 -7.8 22:00:00 59.0 -8.0 23:00:00 57.2 -9.8 August 7, 2013 0:00:00 56.8 -10.2 1:00:00 56.5 -10.5 2:00:00 56.3 -10.7 3:00:00 58.4 -8.6 4:00:00 61.5 -5.5 5:00:00 63.0 -4.0 6:00:00 65.1 -1.9 7:00:00 67.0 0.0 8:00:00 61.0 -6.0 9:00:00 60.5 -6.5 Maximum 67.0 Minimum 56.3 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-67, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 67.0 dBA Leq(h) during the 7:00 to 8:00 AM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-384 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-68. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT6 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) August 7, 2013 16:00:00 63.4 -2.3 17:00:00 62.6 -3.1 18:00:00 64.1 -1.7 19:00:00 62.6 -3.1 20:00:00 61.8 -4.0 21:00:00 61.0 -4.8 22:00:00 60.0 -5.7 23:00:00 57.9 -7.8 0:00:00 56.4 -9.3 August 8, 2013 1:00:00 56.3 -9.4 2:00:00 56.2 -9.6 3:00:00 56.8 -8.9 4:00:00 60.4 -5.3 5:00:00 62.7 -3.1 6:00:00 62.8 -2.9 7:00:00 59.7 -6.1 8:00:00 61.3 -4.4 9:00:00 62.3 -3.4 10:00:00 62.2 -3.6 11:00:00 62.4 -3.4 12:00:00 63.2 -2.5 13:00:00 63.2 -2.5 14:00:00 64.6 -1.1 15:00:00 65.8 0.0 Maximum 65.8 Minimum 56.2 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-68, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 65.8 dBA Ley(h) during the 3:00 to 4:00 PM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-385 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-69. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT7 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) August 14, 2013 12:00:00 62.5 -1.4 13:00:00 62.6 -1.3 14:00:00 62.9 -0.9 15:00:00 63.1 -0.8 16:00:00 62.6 -1.3 17:00:00 62.3 -1.6 18:00:00 63.0 -0.9 19:00:00 63.6 -0.2 20:00:00 62.4 -1.5 August 15, 2013 21:00:00 61.4 -2.5 22:00:00 60.4 -3.5 23:00:00 58.4 -5.5 0:00:00 57.6 -6.2 1:00:00 56.8 -7.1 2:00:00 57.3 -6.6 3:00:00 58.5 -5.3 4:00:00 61.3 -2.5 5:00:00 63.9 0.0 6:00:00 63.5 -0.4 7:00:00 61.1 -2.7 8:00:00 60.7 -3.2 9:00:00 62.1 -1.8 10:00:00 62.8 -1.1 11:00:00 62.5 -1.4 Maximum 63.9 Minimum 56.8 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-69, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 63.9 dBA Ley(h) during the 5:00 to 6:00 AM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-386 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-70. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT8 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Leq[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) August 20, 2013 10:00:00 72.0 -2.5 11:00:00 71.3 -3.2 12:00:00 71.2 -3.2 13:00:00 71.4 -3.1 14:00:00 72.0 -2.5 15:00:00 72.6 -1.9 16:00:00 72.8 -1.7 17:00:00 72.8 -1.7 18:00:00 72.5 -2.0 19:00:00 72.0 -2.5 20:00:00 71.0 -3.5 21:00:00 70.7 -3.8 22:00:00 70.1 -4.4 23:00:00 68.5 -6.0 August 21, 2013 0:00:00 67.2 -7.2 1:00:00 65.7 -8.8 2:00:00 66.7 -7.8 3:00:00 68.5 -6.0 4:00:00 72.1 -2.4 5:00:00 73.9 -0.6 6:00:00 74.5 0.0 7:00:00 73.9 -0.6 8:00:00 73.6 -0.9 9:00:00 72.8 -1.7 Maximum 74.5 Minimum 65.7 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-70, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 74.5 dBA Leg(h) during the 6:00 to 7:00 AM hour. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-387 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-71. Summary of Long -Term Monitoring at Location LT9 Date Beginning Hour Hourly dBA (Ley[h]) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) August 21, 2013 13:00:00 61.4 -4.7 14:00:00 62.2 -3.9 15:00:00 61.0 -5.0 16:00:00 60.7 -5.4 17:00:00 59.7 -6.3 18:00:00 61.6 -4.4 19:00:00 61.2 -4.9 20:00:00 60.7 -5.4 21:00:00 60.3 -5.8 22:00:00 60.9 -5.1 23:00:00 59.0 -7.1 0:00:00 58.8 -7.2 1:00:00 57.3 -8.7 2:00:00 58.2 -7.9 August 22, 2013 3:00:00 59.5 -6.5 4:00:00 62.4 -3.6 5:00:00 64.0 -2.1 6:00:00 65.6 -0.5 7:00:00 66.0 0.0 8:00:00 64.7 -1.3 9:00:00 63.5 -2.5 10:00:00 62.0 -4.1 11:00:00 61.5 -4.5 12:00:00 61.7 -4.3 Maximum 66.0 Minimum 57.3 Note: Worst -case noise hours are bolded. According to Table 2-71, the loudest -hour noise level measured was 66.0 dBA Leg(h) during the 7:00 to 8:00 AM hour. TNM 2.5 was used to compare measured traffic noise levels with modeled noise levels at field measurement locations using the traffic count data collected at the time of the noise measurements. Table 2-72 compares measured and modeled noise levels at each measurement location. Good agreement (within zero to five decibels) was achieved between the measured and modeled results. Calibration results were adjusted, as applicable, to utilize K-factors for the subsequent modeling of existing and future peak -noise -hour traffic noise. Table 2-72 shows which adjustment factors were applied to each respective modeling receiver. If the absolute value of the K-factor was less Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-388 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise than 3 dBA, then the TNM 2.5 modeling result was not adjusted. Modeled existing peak -hour traffic noise levels at all modeling receivers are provided in Appendix B, in Table B-1 of the NSR. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-389 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Table 2-72. Comparison of Measured and Modeled Sound Levels in the TNM 2.5 Model Measurement Site Area Measured Sound Level (dBA) Predicted Sound Level (dBA) Measured minus Predicted (dB) K-Factor Used K-Factor Applied to Additional Modeled Receiver(s) ST1 (M1) A 69.5 68.1 1.4 0 - ST2 (M4) A 61.6 62.4 -0.8 0 - ST3 (M7) A 58.8 59.9 -1.1 0 - ST4 (M8) A 65.4 67.3 -1.9 0 - ST5 (M 11) A 62.2 66.9 -4.7 -4.7 M 10 ST6 (M5) A 62.1 66.8 -4.7 -4.7 M6, M6A, M6B ST7 (M21) A 59.2 63.6 -4.4 -4.4 M21 A - G ST8 (M22) A 65.4 65.2 0.2 0 - ST9 (M16) A 62.1 65.8 -3.7 -3.7 M16A ST10 (M15) A 59.3 62.7 -3.4 -3.4 M13, M13A, M14 ST11 (M17) A 72.2 73.5 -1.3 0 - ST12 (M18) A 67.1 71.3 -4.2 -4.2 M18A, M19 ST13 (M25) A 70.5 71.6 -1.1 0 - ST14 (M24) A 66.8 65.3 1.5 0 - ST17 (M30) B 63.1 65.0 -1.9 0 - ST18 (M26) B 69.3 64.4 4.94 0 - ST19 (M34) B 69.0 69.4 -0.4 0 - ST20 (M27) B 69.3 68.0 1.3 0 - ST21 (M32) B 73.1 74.0 -0.9 0 - ST22 (M35) B 71.8 72.6 -0.8 0 - ST23 (M36) B 61.2 63.4 -2.2 0 - ST24 (M37) B 64.8 65.7 -0.9 0 - ST25 (M38) B 63.1 64.8 -1.7 0 - 4 Measured location ST-18 showed a 4.9 dB differential over the modeled noise level. This was due to the extraneous noise in the form of hotel guests at the pool during the measurement time. No follow-up attempt at a second measurement was made at this location. Therefore, no calibration factor was included in the modeling at this location. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-390 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Measurement Site Area Measured Sound Level (dBA) Predicted Sound Level (dBA) Measured minus Predicted (dB) K-Factor Used K-Factor Applied to Additional Modeled Receiver(s) ST26 (M28) B 73.1 74.1 -1.0 0 - ST27 (M39) B 63.8 62.9 0.9 0 - ST28 (M41) B 66.3 65.5 0.8 0 - ST29 (M40) B 66.4 68.7 -2.3 0 - ST30 (M42) B 68.4 65.7 2.7 0 - ST31 (M43) C 70.4 69.7 0.7 0 - ST32 (M44) C 73.8 71.1 2.7 0 - ST33 (M45) C 60.2 62.7 -2.5 0 - ST34 (M49) C 56.5 60.5 -4.0 -4.0 M47, M48, M50 ST35 (M46) C 55.2 59.3 -4.1 -4.1 M46A ST36 (M52) C 57.4 62.2 -4.8 -4.8 M51. M52A, M52B ST37 (M60) C 64.6 64.5 0.1 0 - ST38 (M53) C 61.9 62.6 -0.7 0 - ST39 (M54) C 62.0 66.5 -4.5 -4.5 M55, M56 ST40 (M58) C 55.3 54.8 0.5 0 - ST41 (M63) C 68.5 73.1 -4.6 -4.6 M63A ST42 (M61) C 62.4 62.2 0.2 0 - ST43 (M64) C 64.0 62.5 1.5 0 - ST44 (M66) C 56.9 57.9 -1.0 0 - ST45 (M69) D 60.9 62.6 -1.7 0 - ST46 (M72) D 58.2 60.2 -2.0 0 - ST47 (M68) D 61.2 62.1 -0.9 0 - ST48 (M74) D 64.5 65.4 -0.5 0 - ST49 (M76) D 58.7 61.78 -3.0 3.0 M75, M76A - C, M77 ST50 (M78) D 60.9 64.1 -3.2 -3.2 M78A, M79 ST51 (M82) D 61.2 63.1 -1.9 0 - ST52 (M83) D 59.5 60.8 -1.3 0 - ST53 (M80) D 56.9 60.8 -3.9 -3.9 M80A - F Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-391 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Measurement Site Area Measured Sound Level (dBA) Predicted Sound Level (dBA) Measured minus Predicted (dB) K-Factor Used K-Factor Applied to Additional Modeled Receiver(s) ST54 (M85) D 62.2 64.8 -2.6 0 - ST55 (M88) D 59.0 61.2 -2.2 0 - ST56 (M86) D 58.7 61.1 -2.4 0 - ST57 (M93) D 57.9 60.7 -2.8 0 - ST58 (M91) D 68.9 72.3 -3.4 -3.4 M91A, M91 B ST59 (M97) D 60.0 63.6 -3.6 -3.6 M97C - E ST60 (M95) D 61.7 61.9 -0.2 0 - ST61 (M 101) E 63.1 63.3 -0.2 0 - ST62 (M104) E 60.4 60.0 0.4 0 - ST63 (M105) E 58.1 57.6 0.5 0 - ST64 (M100) E 68.5 71.8 -3.3 -3.3 M99, M99A, M100A-C ST65 (M108) E 62.1 63.1 -1.0 0 - ST66 (M109) E 63.9 63.2 0.7 0 - ST67 (M111) E 60.1 61.2 -1.1 0 - ST68 (M116) E 58.4 60.6 -2.2 0 - Limonite ST9 (M120) E 58.5 61.1 -2.6 0 - Limonite ST3 (M123) E 62.4 60.5 1.9 0 - Limonite ST13 (M128) E 58.3 57.9 0.4 0 - Limonite ST2 (M129) E 66.5 68.2 -1.7 0 - Limonite ST10 (M130) E 58.3 54.9 3.4 3.4 - Limonite ST1 (M131) F 66.0 68.9 -2.9 0 - Limonite ST4 (M132) F 61.2 61 0.2 0 - Limonite ST5 (M134) F 62.0 62.6 -0.6 0 - Limonite ST6 (M136) F 58.3 61.7 -3.4 -3.4 - Limonite ST7 (M137) F 49.7 51.9 -2.2 0 - Limonite ST8 (M141) F 78.0 78.8 -0.8 0 - ST69 (M139) F 63.3 63.3 0 0 - ST70 (M140) F 61.1 62.9 -1.8 0 - Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-392 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Measurement Site Area Measured Sound Level (dBA) Predicted Sound Level (dBA) Measured minus Predicted (dB) K-Factor Used K-Factor Applied to Additional Modeled Receiver(s) ST71 (M144) F 61.1 60.8 0.2 0 - ST72 (M146) F 71.9 75.7 -3.7 -3.7 M145 ST73 (M1B) A 69.4 74.3 -4.9 -4.9 M1C ST74 (M1F) A 64.8 69.2 -4.4 -4.4 M1D ST75 (M18B) A 59.9 64.1 -4.2 -4.2 - ST76 (M54A) D 74.3 75.3 -1.0 0 - ST77 (M80G) D 64.6 65.2 -0.6 0 - ST78 (M97A) D 64.0 65.5 -1.5 0 - ST79 (M98A) D 59.3 62.8 -3.5 -3.5 M98B - D ST80 (M126) E 73.5 75.7 -2.2 0 - ST81 (M147) F 70.7 73.0 -2.3 0 - Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-393 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise 2.2.7.3 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS The geometry of the project study area relative to nearby existing land uses was modeled and future permitted land uses were identified by contacting Riverside County and the local city planning staff. Information provided by the County and cities indicates that there are planned and permitted projects that would fall under Activity Categories B and C in the vicinity of the project as well as planned and programmed infrastructure projects. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) West The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) West Project, a planned and programmed project, is within Area A. CETAP West includes a proposed interchange along I-15. However, there currently are no plans or profiles for the CETAP alignment with respect to the interchange planned along I-15. As a result, noise modeling for the NSR did not include any of the physical alterations/improvements that would be implemented as part of the CETAP West Project. However, to account for the increased traffic volume provided in the TOAR and any traffic -related impacts associated with the CETAP West Project, the traffic volumes from the CETAP ramps identified in the TOAR were allocated to the lane and ramp configurations in the No -Build and Build conditions along the I-15/Cajalco interchange. State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) At the time the SR-91 CIP EIR/EIS was prepared, it was anticipated that future outside widening of I-15 within the study area might occur in the near -term future. Construction of such widening would potentially eliminate (i.e., demolish) noise barriers designed and constructed as part of the SR-91 CIP and/or replace them with noise barriers at new locations. To allow for this possibility and avoid construction of noise barriers that would not have a long service life, the adopted EIR/EIS for the SR-91 CIP (EA0F5400) included the following environmental commitment (Commitment No. N-4): "If noise barriers proposed for I-15 (with the exception of Noise Barrier [NB] K1-A), as part of a separate project, are not constructed within 5 years of the completion of the construction of the SR-91 CIP, the RCTC will initiate a separate project to construct those walls." The walls that are associated with the SR-91 CIP are shown on Figure 2-30 as "SR-91 Designed Walls" and discussed in further detail below. Because these noise barriers are "SR-91 Designed Walls," these walls are modeled in place as 14-foot noise barriers under both the No - Build and Build conditions. Area A • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-S 1-A: Along the right of way of the southbound lanes between Boyd Avenue and El Cerrito Road (see Figure 2-30, Sheets 7 and 8). • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-S 1-B: Along the edge of shoulder of the southbound main lanes between the El Cerrito Road southbound on -ramp and El Cerrito Road (see Figure 2-30, Sheet 8). • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-Q 1-A: Along the right of way of the southbound lanes between El Cerrito Road and Ontario Avenue (see Figure 2-30, Sheet 9). • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-P 1-A: The barrier system would be built along the northbound lanes from El Cerrito Road to Ontario Avenue. The first barrier would transition from the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-394 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise edge of shoulder to the right of way. The second barrier would be along the edge of shoulder of the Ontario Avenue northbound off -ramp (see Figure 2-30, Sheets 8, 9, and 10). • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-N1-D: Along the edge of shoulder of the northbound main lanes from the Ontario Avenue northbound off -ramp to the Ontario Avenue northbound on -ramp (see Figure 2-30, Sheet 10). Area B • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-N1-C: The barrier system would be built along the northbound lanes from Ontario Avenue to about 1,500 feet south of Old Temescal Road. The first barrier would be located along the edge of shoulder of the Ontario Avenue northbound on -ramp. The second barrier would transition from the existing berm to the right of way (see Figure 2-30, Sheets 10 and 11). • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-N1-B: Along the right of way of northbound main lanes from about 1,200 feet south of Old Temescal Road to Old Temescal Road (see Figure 2-30, Sheet 11). • EA0F5400 SR-91 CIP NB-N1-A: The barrier system would be built along the northbound lanes, from Old Temescal Road to about 2,600 feet north of Old Temescal Road. The first barrier would be located along the right of way. The second barrier would be built along the edge of shoulder (see Figure 2-30, Sheets 11 and 12). Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park The Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park, located within the City of Norco's jurisdiction immediately north of the Santa Ana River, is a planned 122-acre recreational facility that would be used for equestrian events, soccer, football, field hockey, lacrosse, and other sporting events. The facility would consist of extensive lawn areas (both natural and artificial), all-weather sand surface areas, a multi -purpose climate -controlled barn and event building, temporary barns, camping and recreational vehicle hook-ups, reception hall, facility offices, lighting (permanent and temporary), and various storage and maintenance structures. Portions of this park have been constructed. Riverbend Master Planned Community The Riverbend Master Planned Community, located within the City of Jurupa Valley on the east side of I-15 south of 68th street, would develop a 464-home lot master planned community. Riverbend is currently under construction and includes a series of berms and developer noise barriers that would provide shielding for the future homes. Schleisman Avenue New Interchange Project Identified in Area E is the planned and programmed Schleisman Avenue interchange, which is included in the RTP and FTIP. This interchange is planned within the 25-year time horizon outlined in the I-15 TOAR and noise analysis. Conceptual designs and profiles for the interchange were available; however, two additional developments, the Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Park and the Riverbend Master Planned Community, have both been in various phases of development prior to the start of the environmental process for the Schleisman Avenue interchange. Both of these developments share physical space with the planned layout of Schleisman Avenue. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-395 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Interstate 15/Limonite Avenue Interchange Identified in Area E is the planned and programmed the Schleisman Avenue interchange. The environmental document is currently in process for the I-15/Limonite Avenue Interchange Improvements Project (EA OE150) within Area E. The proposed I-15/Limonite Avenue Interchange Project would result in a realignment of the southbound off -ramp from I-15 to Limonite Avenue. This realignment would result in the demolition of a portion of the berm located along the west side of I-15 along the southbound mainline and off -ramp to Limonite Avenue. A 12-foot noise barrier, shown in Figure 2-30 and referenced as "EA OE150 12 Foot Barrier," has been modeled in this location as part of the I-15 noise modeling during the Design Year under the No -Build and Build conditions. This barrier would be located along the State right of way from approximately post mile (PM) 48.52 to PM 48.64(see Figure 2-30, Sheet 31). 2.2.7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Temporary During construction of the Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative), noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Construction noise is regulated by Caltrans' provisions in Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control," of the 2015 Standard Specifications and Special Provisions (SSP 14-8.02). The Standard Special Provision (SSP) will be edited specifically for this project during the plans, specifications, and estimates phase. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during project construction. The first type would be from construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, which would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the project construction site. The pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved on site, would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volume in the project vicinity. A high single -event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 87 dBA maximum noise level (Lmax) from trucks passing at 50 feet would exist. However, the projected construction traffic would be minimal when compared with existing traffic volumes on I-15 and other affected streets, and the associated long-term noise level change would not be perceptible. Therefore, construction -related worker commutes and equipment transport noise impacts would be short term and would not be adverse. The second type of short-term noise impact would be from construction activities. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated and the noise levels along the project alignment as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction -related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 2-73 lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 2-396 Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise Typical noise levels at 50 feet from an active construction area could reach 91 dBA Lmax during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes grading and paving, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavation machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full -power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Table 2-73. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels (dBA Lmax at 50 feet) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA Lmax at 50 feet) Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jackhammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 74 to 84 80 Scrapers 83 to 91 87 Haul Trucks 83 to 94 88 Cranes 79 to 86 82 Portable Generators 71 to 87 80 Rollers 75 to 82 80 Dozers 77 to 90 85 Tractors 77 to 82 80 Front -End Loaders 77 to 90 86 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 89 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman 1987 dBA = A -weighted decibels Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Construction of the project is expected to require the use of earthmovers, bulldozers, paving machines, water trucks, dump trucks, concrete trucks, rollers, and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to be between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the grading phase. As seen in Table 2-73, the maximum noise level generated by each earthmover is assumed to be approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the earthmover in operation. Each bulldozer would generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by water Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project 2-397 Section 2.2. Physical Environment Noise trucks and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Each piece of