PUBLIC FEEDBACK
 
   
 
 

Table of Contents

County of Riverside CETAP - Hearing Draft
* You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read this file.
[Table of Contents]
WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA 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 North-South Access to Current and Future Employment Locations 1-7
    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  
      2.3.1.2 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 2-12
    2.4.1 Alternative 2 - SR-79/Clinton Keith Road 2-12
    2.4.2 Alternative 4 - SR-79/Date Street 2-12
    2.4.3 Alternative 6a - Eastern Bypass/Washington Street/SR-79 2-12
    2.4.4 Alternative 6b - Eastern Bypass/Washington Street/Rainbow Canyon 2-13
  2.5 Related Projects 2-13
         
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT  
  Introduction 3-1
  3.1 Land Use  
    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 3.1-6
      3.1.3.1 Alternative 1  
      3.1.3.2 Alternative 3  
      3.1.3.3 Alternative 5a  
      3.1.3.4 Alternative 5b  
      3.1.3.5 Alternative 7a  
      3.1.3.6 Alternative 7b  
      3.1.3.7 Alternative H  
  3.2 Farmland  
    3.2.1 Types of Farmland 3.2-1
    3.2.2 Alternatives 3.2-1
      3.2.2.1 Alternative 1  
      3.2.2.2 Alternative 3  
      3.2.2.3 Alternative 5a  
      3.2.2.4 Alternative 5b  
      3.2.2.5 Alternative 7a  
      3.2.2.6 Alternative 7b  
      3.2.2.7 Alternative H  
  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 3.3-2
      3.3.2.1 Employment and Income  
      3.3.2.2 Agriculture  
    3.3.3 WT Study Area 3.3-4
      3.3.3.1 Potentially Affected Communities  
      3.3.3.2 Commuting Patterns  
    3.3.4 Housing 3.3-6
  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 Libraries  
      3.5.1.4 Schools  
      3.5.1.5 Solid Waste  
    3.5.2 Utilities 3.5-4
      3.5.2.1 Water  
      3.5.2.2 Electricity  
      3.5.2.3 Natural Gas  
      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 Skinner Regional Park  
      3.6.1.2 Diamond Valley Lake  
    3.6.2 National and State Parks 3.6-4
    3.6.3 Conservation Areas/Wildlife Areas 3.6-4
      3.6.3.1 Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve  
    3.6.4 Schools 3.6-4
    3.6.5 Trails 3.6-5
  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 Air 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 Reactive Organic Compounds  
      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 Standards and Guidelines  
      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 Faults and Seismicity 3.9-3
    3.9.5 Landslides 3.9-7
    3.9.6 Liquefaction 3.9-7
    3.9.7 Mineral Resources 3.9-10
    3.9.8 Paleontological Resources 3.9-10
    3.9.9 Seiches and Tsunami 3.9-12
    3.9.10 Subsidence 3.9-12
  3.10 Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality  
    3.10.1 Water Resources 3.10-1
      3.10.1.1 Santa Ana River Basin Watershed  
      3.10.1.2 San Diego Basin Watershed  
    3.10.2 Floodplains and Flooding 3.10-4
    3.10.3 Water Quality 3.10-4
      3.10.3.1 Steep Slopes  
      3.10.3.2 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin  
      3.10.3.3 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Region  
    3.10.4 Regulatory Considerations 3.10-7
      3.10.4.1 Federal Laws  
      3.10.4.2 State Laws  
    3.10.5 Data Files Used for the Evaluation 3.10-10
  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 Riparian Scrub  
      3.11.2.7 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 3.11-5
    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
      3.11.9.1 California Gnatcatcher  
      3.11.9.2 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly  
    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
      3.11.12.1 Criteria-Based Plan for Proposed Reserve Areas  
      3.11.12.2 Proposed Reserve Areas Within the WT Corridor  
      3.11.12.3 Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands  
  3.12 Cultural Resources  
    3.12.1 Environmental and Cultural Setting and Land Uses 3.12-1
      3.12.1.1 Cultural Setting  
    3.12.2 Cultural Resource Regulations 3.12-10
    3.12.3 Research Methodology 3.12-11
      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 3.12-15
      3.12.4.1 Alternative 1  
      3.12.4.2 Alternative 3  
      3.12.4.3 Alternative 5a  
      3.12.4.4 Alternative 5b  
      3.12.4.5 Alternative 7a  
      3.12.4.6 Alternative 7b  
      3.12.4.7 Alternative H  
  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 WT 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 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 Existing Transportation Management 3.15-9
      3.15.4.1 Existing Transportation Systems Management (TSM)  
      3.15.4.2 Existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM)  
    3.15.5 Existing Goods Movement 3.15-10
      3.15.5.1 Goods Movement  
         
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 Alternative  
      4.1.2.5 Alternative 1  
      4.1.2.6 Alternative 3  
      4.1.2.7 Alternative 5a  
      4.1.2.8 Alternative 5b  
      4.1.2.9 Alternative 7a  
      4.1.2.10 Alternative 7b  
      4.1.2.11 Alternative H  
    4.1.3 Conclusion 4.1-11
    4.1.4 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.1-11
    4.1.5 Tier 2 Studies 4.1-12
  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 1  
      4.2.2.3 Alternative 3  
      4.2.2.4 Alternative 5a  
      4.2.2.5 Alternative 5b  
      4.2.2.6 Alternative 7a  
      4.2.2.7 Alternative 7b  
      4.2.2.8 Alternative H  
    4.2.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.2-3
    4.2.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.2-4
  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  
      4.3.2.4 Other Socioeconomic Effects  
    4.3.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.3-9
    4.3.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.3-10
  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 4.4-3
  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 Services  
    4.5.3 Impacts to Utilities 4.5-3
      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 4.5-5
    4.5.5 Tier 2 Studies 4.5-6
  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 1  
      4.6.2.3 Alternative 3  
      4.6.2.4 Alternative 5a  
      4.6.2.5 Alternative 5b  
      4.6.2.6 Alternative 7a  
      4.6.2.7 Alternative 7b  
      4.6.2.8 Alternative H  
      4.6.2.9 Conclusion  
    4.6.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.6-5
    4.6.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.6-6
  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  
    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 Required 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 4.10-9
      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 – Winchester-to-Temecula Corridor  
    4.10.3 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.10-74
    4.10.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.10-77
  4.11 Biological Resources  
    4.11.1 Methodology for Impact of 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 Species of 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 4.11-26
    4.11.4 Tier 2 Studies 4.11-26
  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 Alternatives (General Plan Build Out)  
      4.12.2.2 Alternative 1  
      4.12.2.3 Alternative 3  
      4.12.2.4 Alternative 5a  
      4.12.2.5 Alternative 5b  
      4.12.2.6 Alternative 7a  
      4.12.2.7 Alternative 7b  
      4.12.2.8 Alternative H  
    4.12.3 Results of Consultations 4.12-5
    4.12.4 Results of the Historical Architecture Survey 4.12-6
    4.12.5 Conclusion 4.12-6
    4.12.6 Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.12-6
    4.12.7 Tier 2 Studies 4.12-7
  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 Level of Service)  
      4.15.2.4 Build Out Analysis Results  
      4.15.2.5 Conclusions  
    4.15.3 Transportation Management 4.15-13
      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 4.15-16
    4.15.5 Tier 2 Studies 4.15-17
  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 4.16-10
    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 – Winchesterto-
Temecula 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 Use  
      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
    5.2.1 Methodology for Impact Evaluation 5-2
    5.2.2 Recreation Resources 5-4
      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 5-5
      5.2.3.1 Archaeological Resources  
      5.2.3.2 Historic Resources  
    5.2.4 Wildlife Management Resources 5-7
  5.3 Use of 4(f) Resources 5-8
    5.3.1 Recreation Resources 5-9
      5.3.1.1 Parks  
      5.3.1.2 Schools  
      5.3.1.3 Trails  
    5.3.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources 5-10
    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 5-13
  5.6 Tier 2 Studies 5-15
         
6.0 CEQA CONSIDERATIONS  
  6.1 Land Use 6-1
  6.2 Farmland 6-2
  6.3 Socioeconomics 6-3
  6.4 Public Services and Utilities 6-4
  6.5 Recreation 6-7
  6.6 Air Quality 6-8
  6.7 Noise 6-9
  6.8 Geology 6-11
  6.9 Surface Hydrology, Floodplains, and Water Quality 6-14
  6.10 Biological Resources 6-20
  6.11 Cultural Resources 6-24
  6.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 6-25
  6.13 Visual Resources 6-28
  6.14 Transportation and Circulation 6-30
  6.15 Cumulative Effects 6-32
  6.16 Growth Inducing Effects 6-33
  6.17 Environmentally Superior Alternative 6-34
         
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 7-7
  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 Winchester to Temecula Corridor Alternatives 2-7
Figure 2.2a Typical Cross-Section 2-9
Figure 2.2b Typical Cross-Section 2-10
Figure 2.3 Related Projects 2-14
Figure 3.1.1 Area Plan Locations 3.1-3
Figure 3.1.2 Affected Jurisdictions 3.1-5
Figure 3.1.3 Existing Land Use 3.1-7
Figure 3.2.1 Important Farmland Affected 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 3.5-3
Figure 3.5.2 Utilities 3.5-5
Figure 3.5.3 MWD Facilities 3.5-7
Figure 3.6.1 Recreation Areas 3.6-3
Figure 3.6.2 Trails 3.6-6
Figure 3.7.1 Air Quality Monitoring Stations in Riverside County SCAB 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 3.9-9
Figure 3.9.4 Subsidence 3.9-13
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 Areas 3.11-14
Figure 3.12.1 Anticipated Prehistoric Site Frequencies 3.12-16
Figure 3.12.2 Anticipated Historic Site Frequencies 3.12-17
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 3.14.9 Vantage Points Depicting Typical Views within the Study Area 3.14-13
Figure 3.15.1 Circulation Study Area 3.15-2
Figure 3.15.2 Locations of Study Area Roadway Segments 3.15-6
Figure 3.15.3 Illustrations of Levels of Service for Freeways 3.15-8
Figure 4.1.1 Future Land Use 4.1-5
Figure 4.3.1 Displacements and Encroachments 4.3-3
Figure 4.3.2 Neighborhood Disruptions 4.3-6
Figure 4.3.3 Transit Dependent Population 4.3-8
Figure 4.8.1 Typical Noise Levels Along CETAP Corridor 4.8-4
Figure 4.10.1 Santa Ana Region (8) - Santa Ana Hydrologic Basin Planning Area 4.10-10
Figure 4.10.2 San Diego Region (9) - Santa Margarita Basin Planning Area 4.10-11
Figure 4.10.3 Hydrologic Subareas 4.10-12
Figure 4.10.4 Surface Water Hydrology (Existing) 4.10-30
Figure 4.10.5 Floodplain Encroachment (Existing) 4.10-31
Figure 4.10.6 Water Quality (Existing) 4.10-42
Figure 4.11.1 Potential Wetland Habitats Within WT Alternatives 4.11-3
Figure 4.11.2 Potential Riverine Waters of the U.S. Within WT Alternatives 4.11-5
Figure 4.11.3 Number of Listed and Non-Listed Species Within WT Alternatives 4.11-8
Figure 4.11.4 Critical Habitat Areas (CHA) Within WT Alternatives 4.11-9
Figure 4.11.5 Upland Habitat Within WT Alternatives 4.11-11
Figure 4.11.6 MSHCP Criteria Area Within WT Alternatives 4.11-13
Figure 4.11.7 Habitat Fragmentation Analysis: Total Habitat Area Affected Within WT Alternatives 4.11-15
Figure 4.11.8 Habitat Fragmentation Analysis: Average Area of Affected Habitat Patches Within WT Alternatives 4.11-16
Figure 4.11.9 Habitat Fragmentation Analysis: Number of Habitat Patches Within WT Alternatives 4.11-17
Figure 4.11.10 Other Land Uses Within WT Alternative 4.11-20
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 Change in Development Area (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 2-8
Table 3.1.A Existing Land Uses Within Alternative Bandwidths 3.1-8
Table 3.3.A Regional and State Demographic Summaries 3.3-2
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 Sheriff Facilities 3.5-2
Table 3.5.C Solid Waste Facilities 3.5-4
Table 3.5.D Water Service Provider Facilities 3.5-6
Table 3.6.A Existing City/County/State Parklands 3.6-2
Table 3.6.B Existing Schools with Publicly Accessible Recreation Opportunities 3.6-5
Table 3.6.C Existing Trails 3.6-7
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 Winchester to Temecula Corridor Alternatives (Summary of Slope, Runoff, & Erosion) 3.9-5
Table 3.9.B Faults and Seismicity Characteristics in the WT Corridor Vicinity 3.9-8
Table 3.12.A Classification Categories 3.12-12
Table 3.12.B Identified Resources, Predicted Resources and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit Analysis 3.12-18
Table 3.12.C Cultural Resources by Alternative 3.12-19
Table 3.12.D Cultural Resource Site Totals 3.12-20
Table 3.12.E Sites by Category and Alignment 3.12-21
Table 3.13.A Number of Hazardous Material/Waste Sites for Each Alternative Within 1.6 Kilometers (1.0 Mile) 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 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 3.15-5
Table 3.15.B Description of Level of Service for Freeways 3.15-7
Table 3.15.C Description of Level of Service for Arterial Roadways with Signalized Intersections 3.15-7
Table 3.15.D Current Truck Volumes on SR-79 and Corresponding Percentage of Capacity Consumed 3.15-10
Table 4.1.A Future Land Uses Affected by Alternatives 4.1-6
Table 4.1.B Ranking of Existing Land Uses Affected by Alternatives 4.1-7
Table 4.1.C Ranking of Future Land Uses Affected by Alternatives 4.1-8
Table 4.3.A Potential Impacts to Structures 4.3-2
Table 4.5.A Electric Power Line Impacts 4.5-4
Table 4.6.A Impacted Recreation and Wildlife 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 CETAP Corridor Traffic Noise Level (Leq) 4.8-2
Table 4.8.B Year 2025 Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) - Winchester to Temecula Corridor 4.8-5
Table 4.8.C Existing Land Use Within Winchester to Temecula Alternatives (acres) 4.8-9
Table 4.8.D Existing Land Use Within Winchester to Temecula Alternatives (percentage) 4.8-9
Table 4.8.E General Plan Land Use Within Winchester to Temecula Alternatives (acres) 4.8-10
Table 4.8.F General Plan Land Use Within Winchester to Temecula Alternatives (percentage) 4.8-10
Table 4.8.G Construction Equipment Noise Levels 4.8-11
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 - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-9
Table 4.10.D Alternative Crossings of Hydrologic Units, Hydrologic Areas, and Hydrologic Subareas - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-14
Table 4.10.E Distribution of Total Area of HSAs Crossed by Alternatives - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-15
Table 4.10.F Summary of Surface Water Hydrology Parameters - Winchester-to- Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-16
Table 4.10.G Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Blue Line Streams) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-17
Table 4.10.H Existing Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Stream Gradient) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-18
Table 4.10.I Existing Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Road, Railroad, and Dam Crossings of USGS Blue Line Streams) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-19
Table 4.10.J Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Channel Improvements) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-20
Table 4.10.K Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Riverine Corridor Continuity) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-21
Table 4.10.L Summary of Floodplain and Water Quality Parameters - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-22
Table 4.10.M Potential Impacts to 100 Year Floodplains (Area Affected and Length of Floodplain Crossing) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-23
Table 4.10.N Tabulation of Impaired Water Bodies, Identified Pollutants, and Sources in each CETAP Alternative - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-24
Table 4.10.O Potential Impacts to Water Quality (Designated §303(d) Impaired Segments) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) 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) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-26
Table 4.10.Q CETAP Alternative Crossing Impacts to Designated Beneficial Uses of Stream Segments - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-27
Table 4.10.R Summary of Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality Parameters - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (existing case) 4.10-52
Table 4.10.S Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 for Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology, Floodplain Encroachment, and Water Quality Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives 4.10-54
Table 4.11.A Potential Direct Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measures to be Considered in Tier 2 4.11-27

Table 4.12.A

 Potentially Significant Sites 4.12-2
Table 4.12.B Native American Contacts Identified by the NAHC 4.12-5
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 Winchester to Temecula Corridor Compared with the 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 WT Alternatives Analyzed 4.15-8
Table 4.15.E 2025 Base Volume/Capacity Ratios for Selected Segments, and Change in V/C Ratio for WT Alternatives Analyzed 4.15-9
Table 4.15.F 2025 Base Level of Service for Selected Segments, and LOS for WT Alternatives Analyzed 4.15-10
Table 4.15.G Maximum Peak Hour Volumes and LOS for WT Alternatives 4.15-11
Table 4.15.H VMT, VHT, and Average Speed for Alternatives in the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Compared with BASE for Build Out

4.15-12
Table 4.15.I Travel Time (Minutes) between Locations for Build Out PM Peak Period 4.15-14
Table 4.15.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 4.15-15
Table 4.16.A Change in Areas of “Developed” and “Undeveloped” Land Uses in Each HSA - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (build out case) 4.16-12
Table 4.16.B Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Channel Improvements) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) 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) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (build out case) 4.16-14
Table 4.16.D Potential Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology (Riverine Corridor Continuity) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (build out case) 4.16-15
Table 4.16.E Potential Hydrologic and Floodplain Impacts of Changes in Developed Land Uses (Area Affected) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (build out case) 4.16-17
Table 4.16.F Potential Impacts to Water Quality (Designated §303(d) Impaired Segments) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) 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) - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) 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 - Winchester-to-Temecula (WT) Alternatives (build out case) 4.16-31
Table 4.16.I WT 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 5-9
Table 5.3.B Schools 5-10
Table 5.3.C Archaeological and Historic Resources 5-11
Table 5.3.D Wildlife Refuge Resource 5-12
Table 5.4.A Resource Avoidance 5-14
Table 6.9.A Potential Impacts to Hydrology, Floodplain, and Water Quality CEQA Parameters - Winchester to Temecula (WT) Corridors 6-19
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