PUBLIC FEEDBACK
 
   
 
 

Table of Contents

County of Riverside CETAP - Hearing Draft
* You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read this file.
[Table of Contents]
HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR (HCLE CORRIDOR)
Section     County of Riverside CETAP - Hearing Draft Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION  
  1.1 Introduction 1-1
  1.2 Tier 1 EIS/EIR 1-3
  1.3 RCIP Planning Context 1-3
  1.4 Growth Projections 1-5
  1.5 Project Need 1-5
    1.5.1 Problem of Limitations in East-West Access to Current and Future Employment Locations 1-5
    1.5.2 Problem of Inadequate Future Mobility on Existing Facilities Within the Study Area 1-7
  1.6 Project Purpose 1-9
  1.7 Regional Planning Context 1-9
  1.8 Proposed Action 1-10
         
2.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION  
  2.1 Introduction 2-1
  2.2 Alternative Development Process 2-1
  2.3 Project Alternatives 2-4
    2.3.1 No Build Alternatives 2-4
      2.3.1.1 Year 2025 No Build Condition 2-4
      2.3.1.2 No Build Condition for Build Out of the Riverside County General Plan  
    2.3.2 Build Alternatives 2-5
    2.3.3 Transportation Systems Management 2-12
  2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Review 2-13
    2.4.1 Alternative 1c - Ramona/Cajalco 2-13
    2.4.2 Alternative 2 - Ramona/Cajalco/Mockingbird Canyon 2-13
    2.4.3 Alternative 3 - Van Buren Boulevard 2-13
    2.4.4 Alternative 4b - SR-74/Ethanac, following northern route to Lake Street at I-15 2-14
    2.4.5 Alternative 4e - SR-74/Ethanac, following new route to south of SR-74 to Nichols Road to I-15 2-14
  2.5 Related Projects 2-14
         
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT  
  Introduction  
  3.1 Land Use 3-1
    3.1.1 Riverside County General Plan 3.1-1
    3.1.2 City General Plans 3.1-4
    3.1.3 Existing Land Use 3.1-4
      3.1.3.1 Alternative 1a  
      3.1.3.2 Alternative 1b  
      3.1.3.3 Alternative 4a  
      3.1.3.4 Alternative 4c  
      3.1.3.5 Alternative 4d  
      3.1.3.6 Alternative 5a  
      3.1.3.7 Alternative 5b  
      3.1.3.8 Alternative 5c  
      3.1.3.9 Alternative 5d  
      3.1.3.10 Alternative 5e  
      3.1.3.11 Alternative 6a  
      3.1.3.12 Alternative 6b  
      3.1.3.13 Alternative H1  
      3.1.3.14 Alternative H3  
  3.2 Farmland  
    3.2.1 Types of Farmland 3.2-1
    3.2.2 Alternatives 3.2-1
      3.2.2.1 Alternative 1a  
      3.2.2.2 Alternative 1b  
      3.2.2.3 Alternative 4a  
      3.2.2.4 Alternative 4c  
      3.2.2.5 Alternative 4d  
      3.2.2.6 Alternative 5a  
      3.2.2.7 Alternative 5b  
      3.2.2.8 Alternative 5c  
      3.2.2.9 Alternative 5d  
      3.2.2.10 Alternative 5e  
      3.2.2.11 Alternative 6a  
      3.2.2.12 Alternative 6b  
      3.2.2.13 Alternative H1  
      3.2.2.14 Alternative H3  
  3.3 Socioeconomics and Community Impacts  
    3.3.1 Population and Demographics 3.3-1
      3.3.1.1 Population  
      3.3.1.2 Age  
      3.3.1.3 Ethnicity  
      3.3.1.4 Other Demographics  
    3.3.2 Regional and Community Economic Conditions 3.3-3
      3.3.2.1 Employment and Income  
      3.3.2.2 Agriculture  
    3.3.3 HCLE Study Area 3.3-4
      3.3.3.1 Potentially Affected Communities  
    3.3.4 Housing 3.3-7
  3.4 Environmental Justice  
  3.5 Public Services and Utilities  
    3.5.1 Public Services 3.5-1
      3.5.1.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services  
      3.5.1.2 Law Enforcement  
      3.5.1.3 Library  
      3.5.1.4 Schools  
      3.5.1.5 Solid Waste  
    3.5.2 Utilities 3.5-6
      3.5.2.1 Natural Gas  
      3.5.2.2 Water  
      3.5.2.3 Electricity  
      3.5.2.4 Sewer  
  3.6 Recreation: Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges  
    3.6.1 City/County/State Parks and Recreation Areas 3.6-1
      3.6.1.1 Lake Elsinore  
      3.6.1.2 Diamond Valley Lake  
    3.6.2 National and State Parks 3.6-4
      3.6.2.1 Lake Perris State Recreation Area  
    3.6.3 Conservation Areas/Wildlife Areas 3.6-4
      3.6.3.1 Lake Mathews Ecological Reserve  
      3.6.3.2 San Jacinto Wildlife Refuge  
      3.6.3.3 Kabian Park  
    3.6.4 Schools 3.6-6
    3.6.5 Trails 3.6-9
  3.7 Air Quality  
    3.7.1 Regional Air Quality and Climate/Meteorology 3.7-1
      3.7.1.1 Climate/Meteorology  
      3.7.1.2 Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status  
      3.7.1.3 Ozone  
      3.7.1.4 Carbon Monoxide  
      3.7.1.5 Nitrogen Oxides  
      3.7.1.6 Sulfur Dioxide  
      3.7.1.7 Lead  
      3.7.1.8 Particulate Matter  
    3.7.2 Local Air Quality 3.7-3
    3.7.3 Regulatory Setting 3.7-5
      3.7.3.1 Federal Regulations/Standards  
      3.7.3.2 State Regulations/Standards  
    3.7.4 Regional Air Quality Planning Framework 3.7-7
      3.7.4.1 Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)  
  3.8 Noise  
    3.8.1 Fundamentals of Noise 3.8-1
    3.8.2 Federal, State, and County Policies and Procedures 3.8-2
      3.8.2.1 Federal Standards and Guidelines  
      3.8.2.2 State Guidelines and Standards  
      3.8.2.3 Riverside County Standards and Guidelines  
  3.9 Geology Affected Environment  
    3.9.1 Regional Geology 3.9-1
    3.9.2 Local Geology 3.9-3
    3.9.3 Erosion and Runoff 3.9-3
    3.9.4 Seismicity and Faulting 3.9-3
    3.9.5 Landslides 3.9-8
    3.9.6 Liquefaction 3.9-8
    3.9.7 Mineral Resources 3.9-10
    3.9.8 Paleontological Resources 3.9-10
    3.9.9 Seiches and Tsunami 3.9-13
    3.9.10 Subsidence 3.9-13
  3.10 Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality  
    3.10.1 Water Resources 3.10-1
    3.10.2 Floodplains and Flooding 3.10-3
    3.10.3 Water Quality 3.10-3
      3.10.3.1 Steep Slopes  
      3.10.3.2 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin  
    3.10.4 Regulatory Considerations 3.10-5
      3.10.4.1 Federal Laws  
      3.10.4.2 State Laws  
    3.10.5 Data Files Used for the Evaluation 3.10-9
  3.11 Biological Resources  
    3.11.1 Existing Physical Characteristics and Land Uses 3.11-1
    3.11.2 Potential Waters of the U.S. and Associated Habitats 3.11-1
      3.11.2.1 Alkali Playas  
      3.11.2.2 Vernal Pools  
      3.11.2.3 Marsh  
      3.11.2.4 Open Waters  
      3.11.2.5 Streams and Rivers  
      3.11.2.6 Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub  
      3.11.2.7 Riparian Scrub  
      3.11.2.8 Riparian Forest  
    3.11.3 Federal or State Listed Species or Candidates Associated With Aquatic, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats 3.11-4
    3.11.4 Critical Habitats of Aquatic and Wetland Species 3.11-4
    3.11.5 Narrow Endemic Species Associated with Aquatic, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats 3.11-7
      3.11.5.1 Endemic to Western Riverside County  
      3.11.5.2 Endemic to Southern California  
    3.11.6 Non-Listed Sensitive Species Associated with Aquatic, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats 3.11-8
    3.11.7 Upland Habitat 3.11-8
      3.11.7.1 Nonnative Grassland  
      3.11.7.2 Riversidean Sage Scrub  
      3.11.7.3 Chaparral  
      3.11.7.4 Oak Woodland  
      3.11.7.5 Croplands  
      3.11.7.6 Grove/Orchard  
      3.11.7.7 Dairy  
      3.11.7.8 Developed  
    3.11.8 Federal or State Listed Species or Candidates Associated with Upland Habitats 3.11-11
    3.11.9 Critical Habitats of Upland Species 3.11-11
    3.11.10 Narrow Endemic Species Associated with Upland Habitats 3.11-12
      3.11.10.1 Endemic to Western Riverside County  
      3.11.10.2 Endemic to Southern California  
    3.11.11 Non-Listed Sensitive Species Associated with Upland Habitats 3.11-12
    3.11.12 Western Riverside County MSHCP Proposed Reserve 3.11-12
  3.12 Cultural Resources  
    3.12.1 Environmental and Cultural Setting and Land Uses 3.12-1
      3.12.1 Environmental and Cultural Setting and Land Uses  
    3.12.2 Cultural Resource Regulations 3.12-11
    3.12.3 Research Methodology 3.12-12
      3.12.3.1 Records Search  
      3.12.3.2 Previous Survey Data  
      3.12.3.3 Site Classification and Characterization  
      3.12.3.4 Native American Heritage Commission Consultation  
      3.12.3.5 Native American and Interested Parties Consultation  
      3.12.3.6 Field Work  
    3.12.4 Cultural Resources Associated with Each Alternative 3.12-16
      3.12.4.1 Alternative 1a  
      3.12.4.2 Alternative 1b  
      3.12.4.3 Alternative 4a  
      3.12.4.4 Alternative 4c  
      3.12.4.5 Alternative 4d  
      3.12.4.6 Alternative 5a  
      3.12.4.7 Alternative 5b  
      3.12.4.8 Alternative 5c  
      3.12.4.9 Alternative 5d  
      3.12.4.10 Alternative 5e  
      3.12.4.11 Alternative 6a  
      3.12.4.12 Alternative 6b  
      3.12.4.13 Alternative H1  
      3.12.4.14 Alternative H3  
  3.13 Hazardous Wastes  
    3.13.1 Existing Setting 3.13-1
    3.13.2 Regulatory Framework 3.13-1
      3.13.2.1 Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks  
      3.13.2.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  
      3.13.2.3 Asbestos Containing Materials  
      3.13.2.4 Lead  
      3.13.2.5 Pesticides  
    3.13.3 Potential Hazardous Waste Site Locations 3.13-4
  3.14 Visual Resources  
    3.14.1 Existing Setting 3.14-1
      3.14.1.1 Visual Distance Zones  
      3.14.1.2 Existing Sensitive Viewers  
      3.14.1.3 Visual Character Descriptions  
      3.14.1.4 Typical Existing Views Within the HCLE Corridor Study Area  
    3.14.2 Applicable Planning Policies 3.14-9
      3.14.2.1 Land Use Element  
      3.14.2.2 Multipurpose Open Space Element  
  3.15 Transportation and Circulation  
    3.15.1 Circulation Study Area and Transportation Modes 3.15-1
    3.15.2 Existing Regional Circulation System 3.15-1
      3.15.2.1 Functional Classifications for Roadways in the Riverside County General Plan Update 3.15-3
    3.15.3 Existing Roadway and Highway Capacity and Level of Service 3.15-4
      3.15.3.1 Current Traffic Volumes and Congestion Levels 3.15-4
    3.15.4 Existing Transportation Management 3.15-10
      3.15.4.1 Existing Transportation Systems Management (TSM) 3.15-11
      3.15.4.2 Existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 3.15-11
    3.15.5 Existing Goods Movement 3.15-11
      3.15.5.1 Goods Movement 3.15-12
         
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES  
  NEPA and CEQA Requirements 4-1
  Chapter Organization 4-1
  4.1 Land Use  
    4.1.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.1-1
    4.1.2 Impacts 4.1-1
      4.1.2.1 County General Plan  
      4.1.2.2 City General Plans  
      4.1.2.3 Existing and Future Land Use  
      4.1.2.4 No Build Alternatives  
      4.1.2.5 Alternative 1a  
      4.1.2.6 Alternative 1b  
      4.1.2.7 Alternative 4a  
      4.1.2.8 Alternative 4c  
      4.1.2.9 Alternative 4d  
      4.1.2.10 Alternative 5a  
      4.1.2.11 Alternative 5b  
      4.1.2.12 Alternative 5c  
      4.1.2.13 Alternative 5d  
      4.1.2.14 Alternative 5e  
      4.1.2.15 Alternative 6a  
      4.1.2.16 Alternative 6b  
      4.1.2.17 Alternative H1  
      4.1.2.18 Alternative H3  
    4.1.3 Conclusion 4.1-12
    4.1.4 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.1-12
    4.1.5 Tier 2 Studies 4.1-13
  4.2 Farmland  
    4.2.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.2-1
    4.2.2 Impacts 4.2-1
      4.2.2.1 No Build Alternative (General Plan Build Out)  
      4.2.2.2 Alternative 1a  
      4.2.2.3 Alternative 1b  
      4.2.2.4 Alternative 4a  
      4.2.2.5 Alternative 4c  
      4.2.2.6 Alternative 4d  
      4.2.2.7 Alternative 5a  
      4.2.2.8 Alternative 5b  
      4.2.2.9 Alternative 5c  
      4.2.2.10 Alternative 5d  
      4.2.2.11 Alternative 5e  
      4.2.2.12 Alternative 6a  
      4.2.2.13 Alternative 6b  
      4.2.2.14 Alternative H1  
      4.2.2.15 Alternative H3  
    4.2.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.2-4
    4.2.4 Tier 2 Studies Required 4.2-5
  4.3 Socioeconomics and Community Impacts  
    4.3.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.3-1
    4.3.2 Impacts 4.3-1
      4.3.2.1 Displacements and Encroachments  
      4.3.2.2 Neighborhood and Community Disruptions  
      4.3.2.3 Transit Dependent Population  
    4.3.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.3-11
    4.3.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.3-12
  4.4 Environmental Justice  
    4.4.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.4-1
    4.4.2 Impacts 4.4-1
    4.4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.4-3
    4.4.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.4-4
  4.5 Public Services and Utilities  
    4.5.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.5-1
    4.5.2 Impacts to Public Services 4.5-2
      4.5.2.1 Fire and Emergency Service  
      4.5.2.2 Law Enforcement  
      4.5.2.3 Library  
      4.5.2.4 Schools  
      4.5.2.5 Solid Waste  
    4.5.3 Impacts to Utilities 4.5-5
      4.5.3.1 Electric  
      4.5.3.2 Natural Gas  
      4.5.3.3 Sewer  
      4.5.3.4 Water  
    4.5.4 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.5-8
    4.5.5 Tier 2 Studies 4.5-8
  4.6 Recreation: Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges  
    4.6.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.6-1
    4.6.2 Impacts 4.6-1
      4.6.2.1 No Build Alternative (General Plan Build Out)  
      4.6.2.2 Alternative 1a  
      4.6.2.3 Alternative 1b  
      4.6.2.4 Alternative 4a  
      4.6.2.5 Alternative 4c  
      4.6.2.6 Alternative 4d  
      4.6.2.7 Alternative 5a  
      4.6.2.8 Alternative 5b  
      4.6.2.9 Alternative 5c  
      4.6.2.10 Alternative 5d  
      4.6.2.11 Alternative 5e  
      4.6.2.12 Alternative 6a  
      4.6.2.13 Alternative 6b  
      4.6.2.14 Alternative H1  
      4.6.2.15 Alternative H3  
      4.6.2.16 Conclusion  
    4.6.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.6-10
    4.6.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.6-11
  4.7 Air Quality  
    4.7.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.7-1
    4.7.2 Impacts 4.7-2
      4.7.2.1 Construction Impacts  
      4.7.2.2 Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts  
      4.7.2.3 Air Quality Conformity Analysis  
    4.7.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.7-6
    4.7.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.7-9
  4.8 Noise  
    4.8.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.8-1
    4.8.2 Impacts 4.8-1
      4.8.2.1 Traffic Noise Impact Assessment  
      4.8.2.2 Construction Noise Impact Assessment  
    4.8.3 Potential Noise Abatement Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.8-11
    4.8.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.8-12
  4.9 Geology  
    4.9.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.9-1
    4.9.2 Impacts to Geology 4.9-2
      4.9.2.1 Erosion and Runoff  
      4.9.2.2 Faults and Seismicity  
      4.9.2.3 Landslides  
      4.9.2.4 Liquefaction  
      4.9.2.5 Mineral Resources  
      4.9.2.6 Paleontological Resources  
      4.9.2.7 Seiches and Tsunami  
      4.9.2.8 Subsidence  
    4.9.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.9-4
    4.9.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.9-4
  4.10 Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality  
    4.10.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.10-1
    4.10.2 Impacts 4.10-8
      4.10.2.1 Criterion SWH-1 – USGS Blue line Stream Crossings  
      4.10.2.2 Criterion SWH-2 – Total Potential Stream Crossings  
      4.10.2.3 Criterion SWH-3 – Total Length of Streams Crossed  
      4.10.2.4 Criterion SWH-4 – Length of USGS Blue line Streams Upstream of the Alternative
Crossing		  
      4.10.2.5 Criterion SWH-5 – Stream Gradient Upstream of the Alternative Crossing  
      4.10.2.6 Criterion SWH-6 – Channel Improvements Upstream of the Alternative Crossing  
      4.10.2.7 Criterion SWH-7 – Riverine Corridor Continuity  
      4.10.2.8 Criterion FP-1 – Total Area of Designated Floodplain Crossed  
      4.10.2.9 Criterion FP-2 – Percent of Designated Floodplain Area Crossed  
      4.10.2.10 Criterion FP-3 – Length of Crossing of Floodplain  
      4.10.2.11 Criterion FP-4 – Percent of Designated Floodplain Upstream of Alternative
Crossing		  
      4.10.2.12 Criterion FP-5 – Angle of Crossing of Designated Floodplain  
      4.10.2.13 Criterion WQ-1 – Length of Impaired Stream Segments in Watersheds Crossed  
      4.10.2.14 Criterion WQ-2 – Percent of Watershed Stream Length with Impaired Status  
      4.10.2.15 Criterion WQ-3 – Area of Impaired Water Bodies Downstream of Crossing  
      4.10.2.16 Criterion WQ-4 – In-Bandwidth Area with Slope Greater than 15 Percent  
      4.10.2.17 Criterion WQ-5 – Number of Designated Beneficial Uses Affected by Stream
Crossings		  
      4.10.2.18 Summary of Potential Impacts of CETAP Alternatives – Hemet-to-Corona/Lake
Elsinore Corridor		  
    4.10.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.10-53
    4.10.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.10-55
  4.11 Biological Resources  
    4.11.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.11-1
    4.11.2 Impacts 4.11-2
      4.11.2.1 Potential Waters of the U.S. and Associated Habitats  
      4.11.2.2 Listed Wildlife and Plant Species Associated with Wetland and Upland Habitats and Critical Habitat  
      4.11.2.3 Narrow Endemics Associated with Wetland and Upland Habitats and Associated Indicator Soils  
      4.11.2.4 Other Wetland and Upland Species of Special Concern (Non-Listed)  
      4.11.2.5 Upland Habitat  
      4.11.2.6 MSHCP Reserve Criteria Area  
      4.11.2.7 Habitat Fragmentation  
      4.11.2.8 Other Land Uses  
      4.11.2.9 Qualitative Evaluation of Watershed-Scale Effects  
      4.11.2.10 Other Direct Effects  
      4.11.2.11 Indirect Effects  
      4.11.2.12 Summary of Impacts by Alternative  
    4.11.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.11-28
    4.11.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.11-32
  4.12 Cultural Resources  
    4.12.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.12-1
    4.12.2 Impacts 4.12-1
      4.12.2.1 No Build Alternative (General Plan Build Out)  
      4.12.2.2 Alternative 1a  
      4.12.2.3 Alternative 1b  
      4.12.2.4 Alternative 4a  
      4.12.2.5 Alternative 4c  
      4.12.2.6 Alternative 4d  
      4.12.2.7 Alternative 5a  
      4.12.2.8 Alternative 5b  
      4.12.2.9 Alternative 5c  
      4.12.2.10 Alternative 5d  
      4.12.2.11 Alternative 5e  
      4.12.2.12 Alternative 6a  
      4.12.2.13 Alternative 6b  
      4.12.2.14 Alternative H1  
      4.12.2.15 Alternative H3  
    4.12.3 Results of Consultations 4.12-6
    4.12.4 Results of the Historical Architecture Survey 4.12-7
    4.12.5 Conclusion 4.12-7
    4.12.6 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.12-8
    4.12.7 Tier 2 Studies 4.12-8
  4.13 Hazardous Wastes  
    4.13.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.13-1
    4.13.2 Impacts 4.13-1
      4.13.2.1 Build Alternatives  
      4.13.2.2 No Build Alternative  
    4.13.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.13-3
    4.13.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.13-4
  4.14 Visual Resources  
    4.14.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.14-1
      4.14.1.1 Criteria to Determine Effects  
      4.14.1.2 Methodology for Visual Analysis  
    4.14.2 Impacts 4.14-2
      4.14.2.1 Conceptual Design Elements Associated with a New Transportation Facility  
      4.14.2.2 Generalized Impacts to Visual Resources  
      4.14.2.3 Urban Visual Character Areas  
      4.14.2.4 Rural and Inland Foothills and Valleys Visual Character Areas  
    4.14.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.14-4
    4.14.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.14-5
  4.15 Transportation and Circulation  
    4.15.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 4.15-1
      4.15.1.1 Transportation Modeling  
      4.15.1.2 The No Build Alternatives (Base Conditions)  
      4.15.1.3 Demographic and Land Use Forecasts  
      4.15.1.4 Description of Measures of Effectiveness  
    4.15.2 Impacts 4.15-5
      4.15.2.1 Daily VMT, VHT, Average Speed, and User Benefits  
      4.15.2.2 Travel Times  
      4.15.2.3 Network Statistics (Traffic Volumes, V/C Ratios, and Levels of Service)  
      4.15.2.4 Build Out Analysis Results  
      4.15.2.5 Conclusions  
    4.15.3 Impact on Transportation Management 4.15-17
      4.15.3.1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)  
      4.15.3.2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)  
      4.15.3.3 Goods Movement  
    4.15.4 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.15-19
    4.15.5 Tier 2 Studies 4.15-20
  4.16 Cumulative Effects  
    4.16.1 Land Use 4.16-3
      4.16.1.1 Direct Effects  
      4.16.1.2 Indirect Effects  
    4.16.2 Farmland 4.16-7
      4.16.2.1 Direct Effects  
      4.16.2.2 Indirect Effects  
    4.16.3 Recreation 4.16-9
    4.16.4 Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment and Water Quality 4.16-11
      4.16.4.1 Criterion SWH-8 – Projected Channel Improvements Upstream of the Alternative Crossing  
      4.16.4.2 Criterion SWH-9 – Projected Riverine Corridor Continuity Upstream of the
Alternative Crossing		  
      4.16.4.3 Criterion FP-6 – Projected Developed Area Upstream of the Alternative Crossing  
      4.16.4.4 Criterion WQ-6 – Projected Percentage of Length of Impaired Stream Segments
in Alternative Bandwidth		  
      4.16.4.5 Criterion WQ-7 – Projected Percentage of Length of Impaired Stream Segments
Upstream of Crossing		  
      4.16.4.6 Criterion WQ-8 – Projected In-Bandwidth Area with Slope Greater Than 15
Percent that will be Developed		  
      4.16.4.7 Summary of Potential Cumulative Impacts of CETAP Alternatives – Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore Alternatives  
    4.16.5 Biological Resources 4.16-30
      4.16.5.1 Loss of Natural Vegetation  
      4.16.5.2 Habitat Fragmentation  
    4.16.6 Cultural Resources 4.16-34
    4.16.7 Hazardous Waste 4.16-34
    4.16.8 Transportation and Circulation 4.16-35
      4.16.8.1 General Plan Land Uses  
      4.16.8.2 Consideration of Combinations of Alternatives  
      4.16.8.3 Consideration of Land Use Changes  
         
5.0 SECTION 4(f) ANALYSIS  
  5.1 Introduction 5-1
    5.1.1 Proposed Action 5-1
    5.1.2 Section 4(f) Requirements 5-1
  5.2 Identification of Potential Section 4(f) Resources  
    5.2.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 5-2
    5.2.2 Recreation Resources 5-5
      5.2.2.1 Parks  
      5.2.2.2 Waterbodies  
      5.2.2.3 Schools  
      5.2.2.4 Trails  
    5.2.3 Archaeological and Historic Resources 5-8
      5.2.3.1 Archaeological Resources  
      5.2.3.2 Historic Resources  
    5.2.4 Wildlife Management Resources  
  5.3 Use of 4(f) Resources 5-9
    5.3.1 Recreation Resources 5-10
      5.3.1.1 Parks  
      5.3.1.2 Schools  
      5.3.1.3 Trails  
    5.3.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources 5-11
    5.3.3 Wildlife Refuge Resources 5-12
  5.4 Resource Avoidance 5-13
  5.5 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 5-14
  5.6 Tier 2 Studies 5-16
         
6.0 CEQA CONSIDERATIONS  
  6.1 Land Use 6-1
  6.2 Farmland 6-3
  6.3 Socioeconomics 6-3
  6.4 Public Services and Utilities 6-4
  6.5 Recreation 6-8
  6.6 Air Quality 6-8
  6.7 Noise 6-10
  6.8 Geology 6-12
  6.9 Surface Hydrology, Floodplains, and Water Quality 6-15
  6.10 Biological Resources 6-21
  6.11 Cultural Resources 6-26
  6.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 6-27
  6.13 Visual Resources 6-30
  6.14 Transportation and Circulation 6-32
  6.15 Cumulative Effects 6-33
  6.16 Growth Inducing Effects 6-35
  6.17 Environmentally Superior Alternative 6-36
         
7.0 OTHER IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS  
  7.1 Growth Inducement 7-1
    7.1.1 Methodology 7-2
    7.1.2 Regional Growth History 7-2
    7.1.3 Relationship of CETAP to Adopted Plans 7-3
    7.1.4 Potential Growth Impacts 7-3
      7.1.4.1 Potential Growth Effects of Alternatives  
      7.1.4.2 Conclusion  
    7.1.5 Mitigation of Potential Growth Impacts 7-6
  7.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action 7-7
  7.3 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 7-8
    7.3.1 Build Alternatives 7-8
    7.3.2 No Build Alternative 7-9
         
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS  
  8.1 Public Agencies 8-1
    8.1.1 Riverside County Transportation Commission 8-1
    8.1.2 California Department of Transportation, District 8 8-1
    8.1.3 Federal Highway Administration 8-1
  8.2 Consultant Team 8-1
    8.2.1 LSA Associates, Inc. 8-1
    8.2.2 Jacobs/Sverdup 8-3
    8.2.3 TransCore 8-3
         
9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES ARE SENT  
         
10.0 REFERENCES  
         
LIST OF FIGURES  
         
Figure 1.1 Study Area and Vicinity 1-2
Figure 2.1 Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Alternatives 2-6
Figure 2.2a Typical Cross-Section 2-9
Figure 2.2b Typical Cross-Section 2-10
Figure 2.3 Related Projects 2-15
Figure 3.1.1 County Area Plans 3.1-3
Figure 3.1.2 Affected Jurisdictions 3.1-5
Figure 3.1.3 Existing Land Use 3.1-6
Figure 3.2.1 Designated Farmland 3.2-2
Figure 3.3.1 Study Area Census Tracts 3.3-5
Figure 3.4.1 Environmental Justice: Non-White Population 3.4-2
Figure 3.4.2 Environmental Justice: Hispanic Population 3.4-3
Figure 3.4.3 Environmental Justice: Poverty 3.4-4
Figure 3.4.4 Environmental Justice: Median Household Income 3.4-5
Figure 3.5.1 Public Services 3.5-4
Figure 3.5.2 Utilities 3.5-8
Figure 3.5.3 MWD Facilities 3.5-9
Figure 3.6.1 Recreation Areas 3.6-3
Figure 3.6.2 Trails 3.6-14
Figure 3.7.1 Air Quality Monitoring Stations in Riverside County 3.7-4
Figure 3.9.1 Geomorphic Provinces and Regional Faults 3.9-2
Figure 3.9.2 General Geology 3.9-4
Figure 3.9.3 Liquefaction 3.9-11
Figure 3.9.4 Subsidence 3.9-14
Figure 3.10.1 Watershed Areas 3.10-2
Figure 3.10.2 Slope 3.10-6
Figure 3.11.1 Critical Habitat 3.11-6
Figure 3.11.2 MSHCP Criteria Area 3.11-14
Figure 3.12.1 Anticipated Prehistoric Site Frequencies 3.12-17
Figure 3.12.2 Anticipated Historic Site Frequencies 3.12-18
Figure 3.13.1 Hazardous Materials/Waste Sites 3.13-5
Figure 3.14.1 Vantage Point Location Map 3.14-3
Figure 3.14.2 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-4
Figure 3.14.3 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-6
Figure 3.14.4 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-7
Figure 3.14.5 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-8
Figure 3.14.6 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-10
Figure 3.14.7 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-11
Figure 3.14.8 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-12
Figure 3.15.1 Circulation Study Area 3.15-2
Figure 3.15.2 Locations of Study Area Roadway Segments 3.15-7
Figure 3.15.3 Illustrations of Levels of Service for Freeways 3.15-9
Figure 4.1.1 Future Land Use 4.1-3
Figure 4.3.1 Displacements and Encroachments 4.3-3
Figure 4.3.2 Neighborhood Disruptions 4.3-9
Figure 4.3.3 Transit Dependent Population 4.3-10
Figure 4.8-1 Typical Noise Levels Along CETAP Corridor 4.8-3
Figure 4.10.1 Santa Ana Region (8) - Santa Ana Hydrologic Basin Planning Area 4.10-10
Figure 4.10.2 Hydrologic Subareas 4.10-11
Figure 4.10.3 Surface Water Hydrology (Existing) 4.10-33
Figure 4.10.4 Floodplain Encroachment (Existing) 4.10-34
Figure 4.10.5 Water Quality (Existing) 4.10-35
Figure 4.11.1 Potential Wetland Habitats Within the HCLE Alternatives 4.11-3
Figure 4.11.2 Potential Riverine Waters of the United States Within the HCLE Alternatives 4.11-5
Figure 4.11.3 Number of Listed and Non-Listed Species Within the HCLE Alternatives 4.11-7
Figure 4.11.4 Critical Habitats (Areas Within the HCLE Alternatives) 4.11-9
Figure 4.11.5 Upland Habitat Within HCLE Alternatives 4.11-12
Figure 4.11.6 MSHCP Criteria Area Within HCLE Alternatives 4.11-13
Figure 4.11.7 Habitat Fragmentation: Total Usable Habitat Area Affected Within HCLE Alternatives 4.11-16
Figure 4.11.8 Habitat Fragmentation Analysis: Average Area of Affected Habitat Patches Within HCLE Alternative 4.11-17
Figure 4.11.9 Habitat Fragmentation Analysis: Number of Patches Affected Within HCLE Alternatives 4.11-18
Figure 4.11.10 Other Land Uses Within the HCLE Alternatives 4.11-21
Figure 4.16.1 Existing Land Uses 4.16-4
Figure 4.16.2 Planned Land Uses 4.16-5
Figure 4.16.3 Surface Water Hydrology (Build Out) 4.16-20
Figure 4.16.4 Changes in Developed Areas (Build Out) 4.16-21
Figure 4.16.5 Water Quality (Build Out) 4.16-22
Figure 5.1 Section 4(f) Resources 5-3
     
LIST OF TABLES  
     
Table 1.A Current and Projected Population and Employment for Cities in Western Riverside County 1-6
Table 2.A Alternative Bandwidths 2-7
Table 3.1.A Existing Land Uses Within Alternative Bandwidths 3.1-7
Table 3.3.A Regional and State Demographic Summaries 3.3-3
Table 3.3.B Riverside County Business Patterns, 1999 3.3-3
Table 3.3.C Communities Within Alternative 3.3-6
Table 3.5.A Fire Station Facilities 3.5-2
Table 3.5.B Police/Sheriff Stations 3.5-3
Table 3.5.C Schools 3.5-5
Table 3.5.D Solid Waste Facilities 3.5-6
Table 3.5.E Water Service Providers and Facilities 3.5-10
Table 3.6.A Existing City/County/State Parklands 3.6-2
Table 3.6.B Existing Conservation Areas 3.6-5
Table 3.6.C Existing Schools with Publicly Accessible
Recreation Opportunities		 3.6-7
Table 3.6.D Existing Trails (Linear Feet Within Alternative Bandwidth) 3.6-10
Table 3.7.A Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.7-6
Table 3.8.A Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) 3.8-3
Table 3.9.A Geology & Topography of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Alternatives (Overview of Slope, Runoff, & Erosion) 3.9-5
Table 3.9.B Faults and Seismicity Characteristics in the HCLE Corridor Vicinity 3.9-9
Table 3.11.A Federal or State Listed Species or Candidates Associated with Aquatic, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats Likely to Occur Within the HCLE Corridor 3.11-5
Table 3.12.A Classification Categories 3.12-13
Table 3.12.B Identified Resources, Predicted Resources and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit Analysis 3.12-19
Table 3.12.C Cultural Resources by Alternative 3.12-22
Table 3.12.D Cultural Resource Site Totals 3.12-23
Table 3.12.E Sites by Category and Alignment 3.12-24
Table 3.13.A Number of Hazardous Material/Waste Sites for Each Alternative Within 1.6 Km (1.0 Mi) of the Corridor Centerline 3.13-6
Table 3.13.B Area of Agricultural Land for each Alternative 3.13-7
Table 3.15.A Existing Peak Hour Volume and Level of Service for Selected Segments 3.15-5
Table 3.15.B Description of Level of Service for Freeways 3.15-8
Table 3.15.C Description of Level of Service for Arterial Roadways with Signalized Intersections 3.15-8
Table 3.15.D Daily Truck Volumes on State Highways in the Corridor and Corresponding Percentage of Capacity Consumed 3.15-13
Table 4.1.A Future Land Uses Affected by Alternatives 4.1-4
Table 4.1.B Ranking of Existing Land Uses Affected by Alternatives 4.1-5
Table 4.1.C Ranking of Future Land Uses Within Alternatives 4.1-6
Table 4.3.A Potential Impacts to Structures 4.3-2
Table 4.5.A Electric Power Line Impacts 4.5-6
Table 4.6.A Impacted Recreation and Wildlife Refuge Resources 4.6-2
Table 4.7.A Western Riverside County Vehicular Emissions Summary (tons) - Year 2025 4.7-4
Table 4.7.B Summary of Emissions Analysis for Proposed General Plan and Alternatives 4.7-7
Table 4.8.A Typical CET AP Corridor Traffic Noise Level (Leq) 4.8-2
Table 4.8.B Year 2025 Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) - Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor 4.8-3
Table 4.8.C Existing Land Uses Within Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Alternatives (Acres) 4.8-8
Table 4.8.D Existing Land Uses Within Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Alternatives (Percentage) 4.8-8
Table 4.8.E General Plan Land Uses Within Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Alternatives (Acres) 4.8-9
Table 4.8.F General Plan Land Uses Within Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Alternatives (Percentage) 4.8-9
Table 4.8.G Construction Equipment Noise Levels 4.8-10
Table 4.10.A Summary of Criteria Used for Parameter Evaluation of Alternatives - Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality 4.10-2
Table 4.10.B Hydrologic Units, Hydrologic Areas, and Hydrologic Subareas Crossed by CETAP Alternatives 4.10-7
Table 4.10.C Areas of “Developed” and “Undeveloped” Land Uses in Each HSA - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-9
Table 4.10.D Alternative Crossings of Hydrologic Units, Hydrologic Areas, and Hydrologic Subareas - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-13
Table 4.10.E Distribution of Total Area of HSAs Crossed by Alternatives - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-14
Table 4.10.F Summary of Surface Water Hydrology Parameters - Hemet-to- Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-15
Table 4.10.G Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Blue Line Streams) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-16
Table 4.10.H Existing Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Stream Gradient) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case)

4.10-17
Table 4.10.I Existing Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Road, Railroad, and Dam Crossings of USGS Blue Line Streams) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-18
Table 4.10.J Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Channel Improvements)- Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-19
Table 4.10.K Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Riverine Corridor Continuity) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing a case) 4.10-20
Table 4.10.L Summary of Floodplain and Water Quality Parameters - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-21
Table 4.10.M Potential Impacts to 100 Year Floodplains (Area Affected and Length of Floodplain Crossing) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-22
Table 4.10.N Tabulation of Impaired Water Bodies, Identified Pollutants, and Sources in each CETAP Alternative - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-23
Table 4.10.O Potential Impacts to Water Quality (Designated §303(d) Impaired Segments) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-25
Table 4.10.P Magnitude of Potential Impacts to Water Quality (In Bandwidth Area with Slope Greater than 15 Percent) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-26
Table 4.10.Q CETAP Alternative Crossing Impacts to Designated Beneficial Uses of Stream Segments - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-27
Table 4.10.R Summary of Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality Parameters a - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-54
Table 4.10.S Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 for Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives 4.10-56
Table 4.11.A Potential Direct Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.11-29
Table 4.12.A Potentially Significant Sites 4.12-2
Table 4.12.B Native American Contacts Identified by the NAHC 4.12-6
Table 4.15.A Household and Employment Forecasts in Western Riverside County (Modeling Area Only) for Year 2025 and Build Out 4.15-2
Table 4.15.B Daily VMT, VHT, Average Speed, and User Benefits for Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Compared with the No-Build Base for 2025 4.15-5
Table 4.15.C Travel Time (Minutes) Between Locations for 2025 PM Peak Period 4.15-6
Table 4.15.D 2025 Base Peak Hour Volume for Selected Segments, and Change in Volume for HCLE Alternatives Analyzed 4.15-8
Table 4.15.E 2025 Base Volume/Capacity Ratios for Selected Segments, and Change in V/C Ratios for HCLE Alternatives Analyzed 4.15-10
Table 4.15.F 2025 Base Level of Service for Selected Segments, and LOS for HCLE Alternatives Analyzed 4.15-12
Table 4.15.G Maximum Peak Hour Volumes and LOS for HCLE Alternatives 4.15-14
Table 4.15.H VMT, VHT, and Average Speed for Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Compared with Base for Build Out 4.15-15
Table 4.15.I Travel Time (Minutes) Between Locations for Build Out PM Peak Period 4.15-16
Table 4.16.A Change in Areas of “Developed” and “Undeveloped” Land Uses in Each HSA - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives Build Out Case) 4.16-12
Table 4.16.B Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Channel Improvements) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (Build Out Case) 4.16-13
Table 4.16.C Projected Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Road, Railroad, and Dam Crossings of USGS Blue Line Streams) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (Build Out Case) 4.16-14
Table 4.16.D Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Riverine Corridor Continuity) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (Build Out Case) 4.16-15
Table 4.16.E Potential Hydrologic and Floodplain Impacts of Changes in Developed Land Uses (Area Affected) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (Build Out Case) 4.16-17
Table 4.16.F Potential Impacts to Water Quality (Designated §303(d) Impaired Segments) - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (Build Out Case) 4.16-18
Table 4.16.G Magnitude of Potential Impacts to Water Quality (In Bandwidth Area with Slope Greater than 15 Percent - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (Build Out Case) 4.16-19
Table 4.16.H Summary of Potential Cumulative Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality Parameters - Hemet-to-Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Alternatives (build out case) 4.16-31
Table 4.16.I HCLE Contribution to Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation Types in Western Riverside County 4.16-33
Table 4.16.J Illustration of Percent Changes for Combination of Alternatives Versus Individual Alternatives (Alt 1b in the HCLE Corridor and Alt 1 in the WT Corridor) for Western Riverside County 4.16-37
Table 5.2.A Classification Categories 5-6
Table 5.2.B Cultural Resource Site Totals 5-7
Table 5.3.A Recreation Resources 5-10
Table 5.3.B Schools 5-11
Table 5.3.C Archaeological and Historic Resources 5-11
Table 5.3.D Wildlife Refuge Resources 5-13
Table 5.4.A Resource Avoidance 5-15
Table 6.9.A Potential Impacts to Hydrology, Floodplain, and Water Quality CEQA Parameters - (Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore) Alternatives 6-20
Table 9.A CETAP DEIS/DEIR and NOA Mailing List 9-2
     
     
 
 
 

Home | Why RCIP | General Plan | Conservation Plan | Transportation Plan

Maps | Calendar | Who's Involved | Youth | Get Involved | Press Room | Library | Public Feedback

Copyright © 2003 Riverside County Integrated Project, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED