Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
final-isea-08-25-17 original
Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 08 – RIV – 15 PM 18.3/21.0 EA 08-0A4400 PN 080000016 Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016, and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. August 2017 This page intentionally left blank 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 disc. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission, Attn: Alex Menor, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92501, (951) 787-7970 (voice); or use California Relay Service, 1(800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1(800) 735-2929 (Voice), or 711. This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project i This page intentionally left blank I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project ii ii SCH Number: 2017011018 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description The City of Lake Elsinore, in cooperation with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes improvements to the Interstate 15 (I-15)/Railroad Canyon Road interchange (IC) and the construction of a new interchange 0.22 mile north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing in the City of Lake Elsinore. Determination Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and following public review, has determined from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: The proposed project would have no effect on: Coastal Zones Wild and Scenic Rivers Farmlands or Timberlands In addition, the proposed project would have less than significant effects to: Land Use Growth Community Character and Cohesion Utilities and Emergency Services Traffic and Transportation Visual/Aesthetics Geology and Soils Hazardous Waste and Materials Air Quality Noise Water Quality Hydrology and Floodplain Cultural Resources With the following mitigation measures incorporated, the proposed project would have less than significant effects to: Paleontological Resources Biological Resources Wetlands and Other Waters PAL-1 Prior to the beginning of construction activities, a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for implementation during the excavation phase of the project. The PMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... VII NEPA ASSIGNMENT ..............................................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................1-1 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................................................................1-1 1.2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1-1 1.2.1 Existing Facility .........................................................................................1-5 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ..........................................................................................1-6 1.3.1 Purpose .....................................................................................................1-6 1.3.2 Need .........................................................................................................1-6 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 1-18 1.5 ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................. 1-18 1.5.1 Project Alternatives ................................................................................. 1-18 1.5.2 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................... 1-60 1.6 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................. 1-70 1.6.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Discussion ............ 1-71 1.7 STAGE CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 1-74 1.8 PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED .............................................................. 1-75 CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES ...........................................................................2-1 2.1 LAND USE ......................................................................................................... 2.1-1 2.1.1 Existing and Future Land Uses .............................................................. 2.1-1 2.1.2 Development Trends .............................................................................. 2.1-3 2.1.3 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans ................................ 2.1-3 2.1.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities ......................................................... 2.1-16 2.1.5 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.1-16 2.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.1-23 2.2 GROWTH ........................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.2-1 2.2.2 Background ............................................................................................ 2.2-1 2.2.3 First-cut Screening ................................................................................. 2.2-5 2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.2-10 2.3 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COHESION .................................................. 2.3-1 2.3.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.3-1 2.3.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.3-1 2.3.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 2.3-7 2.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.3-34 2.4 RELOCATION AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION ............................................... 2.4-1 2.4.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.4-1 2.4.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.4-1 2.4.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 2.4-1 2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.4-13 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................. 2.5-1 2.5.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.5-1 2.5.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.5-1 2.5.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 2.5-2 2.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ............................ 2.5-3 Table of Contents I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-ii 2.6 UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ........................................................ 2.6-1 2.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.6-1 2.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 2.6-2 2.6.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ............................ 2.6-9 2.7 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ........................................................................................................ 2.7-1 2.7.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.7-1 2.7.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.7-1 2.7.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 2.7-4 2.7.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.7-56 2.8 VISUAL/AESTHETICS ....................................................................................... 2.8-1 2.8.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.8-1 2.8.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.8-1 2.8.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.8-27 2.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.8-45 2.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 2.9-1 2.9.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2.9-1 2.9.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 2.9-2 2.9.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 2.9-4 2.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ............................ 2.9-8 2.10 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAIN ................................................................... 2.10-1 2.10.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.10-1 2.10.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.10-1 2.10.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.10-2 2.10.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.10-7 2.11 WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF ......................................... 2.11-1 2.11.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.11-1 2.11.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.11-4 2.11.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.11-6 2.11.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ........................ 2.11-12 2.12 GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMIC/TOPOGRAPHY ................................................... 2.12-1 2.12.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.12-1 2.12.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.12-1 2.12.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.12-4 2.12.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ........................ 2.12-10 2.13 PALEONTOLOGY ............................................................................................ 2.13-1 2.13.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.13-1 2.13.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.13-1 2.13.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.13-5 2.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.13-7 2.14 HAZARDOUS WASTE AND MATERIALS ........................................................ 2.14-1 2.14.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.14-1 2.14.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.14-1 2.14.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.14-4 2.14.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.14-8 2.15 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................... 2.15-1 2.15.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.15-1 2.15.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.15-2 2.15.3 Regional Air Quality Conformity ........................................................... 2.15-8 2.15.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ........................ 2.15-28 2.16 NOISE .............................................................................................................. 2.16-1 2.16.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.16-1 Table of Contents I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-iii 2.16.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.16-3 2.16.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.16-4 2.16.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Abatement Measures .................... 2.16-118 2.17 NATURAL COMMUNITIES .............................................................................. 2.17-1 2.17.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.17-1 2.17.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.17-5 2.17.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.17-7 2.18 WETLANDS AND OTHER W ATERS ................................................................ 2.18-1 2.18.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.18-1 2.18.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.18-2 2.18.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.18-7 2.18.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.18-9 2.19 PLANT SPECIES ............................................................................................. 2.19-1 2.19.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.19-1 2.19.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.19-1 2.19.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.19-2 2.19.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.19-5 2.20 ANIMAL SPECIES ............................................................................................ 2.20-1 2.20.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.20-1 2.20.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.20-1 2.20.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.20-2 2.20.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.20-6 2.21 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................... 2.21-1 2.21.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.21-1 2.21.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.21-1 2.21.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.21-3 2.21.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.21-6 2.22 INVASIVE SPECIES ........................................................................................ 2.22-1 2.22.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.22-1 2.22.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.22-1 2.22.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.22-2 2.22.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .......................... 2.22-3 2.23 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................. 2.23-1 2.23.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.23-1 2.23.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 2.23-1 2.23.3 Methodology ........................................................................................ 2.23-1 2.23.4 Resources Excluded from Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...................... 2.23-2 2.23.5 Resources Evaluated for Cumulative Impacts ...................................... 2.23-3 2.23.6 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 2.23-3 2.23.7 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ........................ 2.23-15 2.24 CLIMATE CHANGE .......................................................................................... 2.24-1 2.24.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 2.24-1 2.24.2 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 2.24-5 2.24.3 Project Analysis .................................................................................... 2.24-6 2.24.4 Construction Emissions ........................................................................ 2.24-9 2.24.5 CEQA Conclusion .............................................................................. 2.24-10 2.24.6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies .............................................. 2.24-10 2.24.7 Adaptation Strategies ......................................................................... 2.24-12 CHAPTER 3 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................3-1 3.1 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION ...................................3-1 3.1.1 Native American Consultation and Coordination .......................................3-1 3.1.2 United States Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................3-3 Table of Contents I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-iv 3.1.3 Resource Agencies (United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife). ..............................................3-3 3.1.4 Transportation Conformity Working Group ................................................3-8 3.1.5 Coordination with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ........................................................................... 3-11 3.2 PUBLIC REVIEW ................................................................................................ 3-14 3.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................. 3-18 3.3.1 Comments Received ............................................................................... 3-18 3.3.2 Format of Responses to Comments ........................................................ 3-18 CHAPTER 4 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................4-1 CHAPTER 5 DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................................5-1 APPENDIX A CEQA CHECKLIST ...................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B RESOURCES RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 4(F) .............................................................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C CALTRANS’ TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT .............................................. C-1 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RAP) ........ D-1 APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD .......................................... E-1 APPENDIX F LIST OF TECHNICAL STUDIES .................................................................. F-1 APPENDIX G 2016 RTP AND 2017 FTIP PROJECT LISTINGS ........................................ G-1 APPENDIX H TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS AND PROFILES FOR ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... H-1 APPENDIX I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................... I-1 APPENDIX J REFERENCES .............................................................................................J-1 APPENDIX K USFWS/CDFW MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................. K-1 APPENDIX L AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................. L-1 List of Figures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-v List of Figures Figure 1.2: Alternative 2 Conceptual Plan ............................................................................. 1-31 Figure 1.3: Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan ............................................................................. 1-41 Figure 1.4: Alternative 4 Conceptual Plan ............................................................................. 1-51 Figure 2.1.1: City General Plan Land Uses .......................................................................... 2.1-5 Figure 2.1.2: Recreational Facilities ................................................................................... 2.1-17 Figure 2.2.1: Census Tracts ................................................................................................. 2.2-3 Figure 2.3.1: Property Acquisitions for Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................... 2.3-11 Figure 2.3.2: Property Acquisitions for Alternative 4 ........................................................... 2.3-35 Figure 2.8.1: Key View Locations ......................................................................................... 2.8-5 Figure 2.8.2: Key Views No. 1 and No. 2.............................................................................. 2.8-7 Figure 2.8.3: Key Views No. 3 and No. 4............................................................................ 2.8-11 Figure 2.8.4: Key Views No. 5 and No. 6............................................................................ 2.8-13 Figure 2.8.5: Key Views No. 7 and No. 8............................................................................ 2.8-17 Figure 2.8.6: Key Views No. 9 and No. 10 .......................................................................... 2.8-19 Figure 2.8.7: Key View No. 11 ............................................................................................ 2.8-23 Figure 2.8.8: Visual Simulation for Key View No. 3 ............................................................ 2.8-29 Figure 2.8.9: Visual Simulation for Key View No. 5 ............................................................ 2.8-31 Figure 2.8.10: Visual Simulation for Key View No. 11......................................................... 2.8-47 Figure 2.13.1: Areas of High Paleontological Sensitivity ..................................................... 2.13-3 Figure 2.15.1: Locations of Air Quality Monitoring Stations in the Basin ............................. 2.15-5 Figure 2.16.1: Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations ............................................................ 2.16-5 Figure 2.16.2: Modeled Noise Barriers and Receiver Locations for Alternative 2 ............. 2.16-39 Figure 2.16.3: Modeled Noise Barriers and Receptor Locations for Alternative 3 ............. 2.16-63 Figure 2.16.4: Modeled Noise Barriers and Receptor Locations for Alternative 4 ............. 2.16-93 Figure 2.18.1: Drainage Features within the BSA ............................................................... 2.18-3 Figure 2.24.1: 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition ............. 2.24-6 Figure 2.24.2: Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On-Road CO2 Emissions ................................................................................................................... 2.24-7 Figure 2.24.3: The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals ....................................................................................................... 2.24-11 List of Figures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-vi This page intentionally left blank List of Tables I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-vii List of Tables Table 1.A: Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Segments .................................................... 1-7 Table 1.B: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections .............................................. 1-7 Table 1.C: Baseline (2013) and Future (2040) No Build Freeway Mainline and Ramp Volumes .......................................................................................................................... 1-8 Table 1.D: Baseline Year (2013) No Build Freeway Mainline Levels of Service ...................... 1-9 Table 1.E: Opening Year (2019) No Build Freeway Mainline Levels of Service ....................... 1-9 Table 1.F: Future Year (2040) No Build Alternative Mainline Levels of Service ..................... 1-10 Table 1.G: Baseline (2013) Freeway Ramp Levels of Service ............................................... 1-10 Table 1.H: 2019 No Build Alternative Freeway Ramp Levels of Service ................................ 1-11 Table 1.I: 2040 No Build Alternative Freeway Ramp Levels of Service ................................. 1-11 Table 1.J: Baseline (2013), Opening (2019), and Future Year (2040) No Build Alternative Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................ 1-12 Table 1.K: Accident Rates for the I-15 Mainline Freeway ...................................................... 1-13 Table 1.L: Primary Collision Factors for Railroad Canyon Road Northbound and Southbound Exit Ramps and Main Street Southbound Entrance and Exit Ramps ......... 1-14 Table 1.M: Types of Collision for Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp and Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp ...................................................................... 1-14 Table 1.N: Non-Standard Freeway Shoulders ....................................................................... 1-22 Table 1.O: Non-Standard Superelevation (SE) Rates ........................................................... 1-23 Table 1.P: Non-Standard Runoff (1/3L and 2/3L) .................................................................. 1-25 Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................. 1-61 Table 1.R: Value Analysis Alternatives Considered ............................................................... 1-71 Table 1.S: Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................................. 1-72 Table 1.T: Permits and/or Approvals Needed ........................................................................ 1-76 Table 2.1.A: Summary of Proposed Projects Within Project Vicinity ..................................... 2.1-7 Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs .................. 2.1-9 Table 2.2.A: Population, Household, and Employment Estimates ........................................ 2.2-7 Table 2.3.A: 2010 Racial and Ethnic Composition ................................................................ 2.3-2 Table 2.3.B: Population and Household Size ....................................................................... 2.3-3 Table 2.3.C: Housing Tenure ............................................................................................... 2.3-3 Table 2.3.D: Housing Profile ................................................................................................ 2.3-4 Table 2.3.E: Age Distribution ................................................................................................ 2.3-5 Table 2.3.F: Transit Dependent Population (16 Years and Older Within a Household) ......... 2.3-6 Table 2.3.G: Community Cohesion Factors and Summary ................................................... 2.3-9 Table 2.4.A: Properties Impacted by Temporary Construction Easements ........................... 2.4-2 Table 2.4.B: Summary of Property Acquisitions for Build Alternative 2 ................................. 2.4-4 Table 2.4.C: Properties Impacted by Partial Acquisitions ..................................................... 2.4-5 Table 2.4.D: Properties Impacted by Full Acquisitions.......................................................... 2.4-6 Table 2.4.E: Summary of Property Acquisitions for Build Alternative 3 ................................. 2.4-8 Table 2.4.F: Potential Annual Sales Tax Revenue Loss for Alternative 3 ........................... 2.4-10 Table 2.4.G: Summary of Property Acquisitions for Build Alternative 4 .............................. 2.4-11 Table 2.5.A: Environmental Justice Populations ................................................................... 2.5-2 Table 2.6.A: Utility Service Providers ................................................................................... 2.6-1 Table 2.6.B: Potential Utility Conflicts During Project Construction ....................................... 2.6-3 Table 2.7.A: 2013 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 2.7-3 Table 2.7.B: Baseline Year (2013) Queue Lengths .............................................................. 2.7-4 Table 2.7.C: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 2.7-7 Table 2.7.D: 2019 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing, No Build Alternative ................................. 2.7-8 List of Tables I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-viii Table 2.7.E: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 2.7-9 Table 2.7.F: 2040 Queue Lengths, No Build Alternative ..................................................... 2.7-10 Table 2.7.G: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2- Phase 1 ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-11 Table 2.7.H: 2019 Exit Ramp Queue Lengths, Alternative 2-Phase 1 ................................ 2.7-12 Table 2.7.I: 2019 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2-Phase 1 .......... 2.7-12 Table 2.7.J: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2- Phase 1 ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-14 Table 2.7.K: 2032 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing, Alternative 2-Phase 1 ............................. 2.7-15 Table 2.7.L: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2-Phase 1 ......... 2.7-15 Table 2.7.M: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2- Phase 2 ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-16 Table 2.7.N: 2032 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing, Alternative 2-Phase 2 ............................. 2.7-17 Table 2.7.O: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2-Phase 2 ......... 2.7-18 Table 2.7.P: 2032 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 2-Phase 2 ......... 2.7-18 Table 2.7.Q: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2- Phase 2 ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-19 Table 2.7.R: 2040 Exit Ramp Queue Lengths, Alternative 2 .............................................. 2.7-20 Table 2.7.S: 2040 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2 ....................... 2.7-21 Table 2.7.T: 2040 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 2 ........................ 2.7-21 Table 2.7.U: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 2 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions ....................................................... 2.7-22 Table 2.7.V: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 2 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions ....................................................... 2.7-24 Table 2.7.W: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3- Phase 1 ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-26 Table 2.7.X: 2019 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3-Phase 1 .................................................. 2.7-27 Table 2.7.Y: 2019 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3-Phase 1 ......... 2.7-28 Table 2.7.Z: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3- Phase 1 ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-29 Table 2.7.AA: 2032 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3-Phase 1 ............................................... 2.7-30 Table 2.7.AB: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3-Phase 1 ....... 2.7-30 Table 2.7.AC: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3-Phase 2 ................................................................................................................... 2.7-31 Table 2.7.AD: 2032 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3-Phase 2 ............................................... 2.7-32 Table 2.7.AE: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3-Phase 2 ....... 2.7-33 Table 2.7.AF: 2032 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 3-Phase 2 ....... 2.7-33 Table 2.7.AG: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3 2.7-35 Table 2.7.AH: 2040 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3 ............................................................. 2.7-36 Table 2.7.AI: 2040 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3 ...................... 2.7-36 Table 2.7.AJ: 2040 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 3 ...................... 2.7-36 Table 2.7.AK: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 3 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions .................................................. 2.7-37 Table 2.7.AL: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 3 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions .................................................. 2.7-38 Table 2.7.AM: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 1 ................................................................................................................... 2.7-41 Table 2.7.AN: 2019 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4-Phase 1 ............................................... 2.7-42 Table 2.7.AO: 2019 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4-Phase 1 ..... 2.7-42 Table 2.7.AP: 2025 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 1 ................................................................................................................... 2.7-43 List of Tables I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-ix Table 2.7.AQ: 2025 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4-Phase 1 ............................................... 2.7-44 Table 2.7.AR: 2025 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4-Phase 1....... 2.7-44 Table 2.7.AS: 2025 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 2 ................................................................................................................... 2.7-46 Table 2.7.AT: 2025 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4-Phase 2 ................................................ 2.7-47 Table 2.7.AU: 2025 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4-Phase 2....... 2.7-47 Table 2.7.AV: 2025 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 2 ....... 2.7-48 Table 2.7.AW: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................. 2.7-49 Table 2.7.AX: 2040 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4 .............................................................. 2.7-50 Table 2.7.AY: 2040 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4 ..................... 2.7-50 Table 2.7.AZ: 2040 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 4 ..................... 2.7-51 Table 2.7.BA: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 4 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions .................................................. 2.7-52 Table 2.7.BB: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 4 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions .................................................. 2.7-54 Table 2.11.A: Alternative 2 Impervious Surface Area Comparison ..................................... 2.11-8 Table 2.11.B: Alternative 3 Impervious Surface Area Comparison ..................................... 2.11-9 Table 2.11.C: Alternative 4 Impervious Surface Area Comparison ................................... 2.11-10 Table 2.13.A: Maximum Depth of Excavation (ft) ............................................................... 2.13-5 Table 2.15.A: Ambient Air Quality Standards at the Lake Elsinore and Rubidoux Air Monitoring Stations ............................................................................................... 2.15-7 Table 2.15.B State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ..... 2.15-9 Table 2.15.C Maximum Project Construction Emissions ................................................. 2.15-13 Table 2.15.D: 2019 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Total AADT/Truck AADT) ... 2.15-17 Table 2.15.E: 2040 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Total AADT/Truck AADT) .... 2.15-18 Table 2.15.F: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, No Build Alternative ........................... 2.15-18 Table 2.15.G: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, Alternative 2 ...................................... 2.15-19 Table 2.15.H: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, Alternative 3 ...................................... 2.15-19 Table 2.15.I: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, Alternative 4 ....................................... 2.15-20 Table 2.15.J Total Intersection Traffic Volume Comparisons ........................................... 2.15-21 Table 2.16.A: Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................ 2.16-2 Table 2.16.B: Noise Levels of Common Activities .............................................................. 2.16-3 Table 2.16.C: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ...................................................................... 2.16-19 Table 2.16.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ........................................... 2.16-23 Table 2.16.E: Alternative 2 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) ............................ 2.16-25 Table 2.16.F: Alternative 2 Interior Noise Analysis ........................................................... 2.16-30 Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) ........................................... 2.16-32 Table 2.16.H: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) ............................................ 2.16-38 Table 2.16.I: Alternative 2 Feasible Noise Barriers ........................................................... 2.16-53 Table 2.16.J: Alternative 2 Summary of Abatement Information ....................................... 2.16-54 Table 2.16.K: Alternative 3 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) ............................ 2.16-55 Table 2.16.L: Alternative 3 Interior Noise Analysis ........................................................... 2.16-60 Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) .......................................... 2.16-77 Table 2.16.N: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) ............................................ 2.16-83 Table 2.16.O: Alternative 3 Feasible Noise Barriers ........................................................ 2.16-84 Table 2.16.P: Alternative 3 Summary of Abatement Information ...................................... 2.16-85 Table 2.16.Q: Alternative 4 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) ............................ 2.16-86 Table 2.16.R: Alternative 4 Interior Noise Analysis ........................................................... 2.16-90 Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) ..........................................2.16-107 Table 2.16.T: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) ..........................................2.16-113 Table 2.16.U: Alternative 4 Feasible Noise Barriers ........................................................2.16-114 List of Tables I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project TOC-x Table 2.17.A: Soils Present within the BSA ........................................................................ 2.17-2 Table 2.18.A: Potential Waters of the United States/CDFW Streambed ............................. 2.18-5 Table 2.18.B Project Impacts: Wetlands and Other Waters1 ............................................. 2.18-8 Table 2.19.A: Alternative 2 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Use within the BSA ............... 2.19-3 Table 2.19.B: Alternative 3 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Use within the BSA ............... 2.19-4 Table 2.19.C: Alternative 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Use within the BSA ............... 2.19-5 Table 2.22.A: Invasive Plant Species Observed ................................................................. 2.22-1 Table 2.24.A: Modeled Annual CO2 Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled, by Alternative .................................................................................................................. 2.24-9 Table 3.A: Summary of Consultation and Coordination Activities ............................................ 3-2 Table 3.B: Comment Letters Received During Public Comment Period ................................ 3-18 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-1 NEPA Assignment California participated in the “Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program” (Pilot Program) pursuant to 23 USC 327, for more than five years, beginning July 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2012. MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141), signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012, amended 23 USC 327 to establish a permanent Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. As a result, the Department entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to 23 USC 327 (NEPA Assignment MOU) with FHWA. The NEPA Assignment MOU became effective October 1, 2012, and was renewed on December 23, 2016 for a term of five years. In summary, the Department continues to assume FHWA responsibilities under NEPA and other federal environmental laws in the same manner as was assigned under the Pilot Program, with minor changes. With NEPA Assignment, FHWA assigned and the Department assumed all of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA. This assignment includes projects on the State Highway System and Local Assistance Projects off of the State Highway System within the State of California, except for certain categorical exclusions that FHWA assigned to the Department under the 23 USC 326 CE Assignment MOU, projects excluded by definition, and specific project exclusions. Chapter 1 Proposed Project 1.1 Proposed Project Changes have been made to this Environmental Document since the public circulation of the Draft Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment (Draft IS/EA) between January 12, 2017, and February 13, 2017. Public and agency comments received during the circulation of the Draft IS/EA and the related Public Information Meeting, held on February 1, 2017, during the public circulation period, resulted in refinements that have been incorporated into this Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact (MND/FONSI). A vertical line in the outside margin indicates changes in the adjacent text of this document in relation to the corresponding part in the Draft IS/EA. 1.2 Introduction California participated in the “Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program” (Pilot Program) pursuant to 23 USC 327, for more than five years, beginning July 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2012. MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141), signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012, amended 23 USC 327 to establish a permanent Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. As a result, the Department entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to 23 USC 327 (NEPA Assignment MOU) with FHWA. The NEPA Assignment MOU became effective October 1, 2012, and was renewed on December 23, 2016 for a term of five years. In summary, the Department continues to assume FHWA responsibilities under NEPA and other federal environmental laws in the same manner as was assigned under the Pilot Program, with minor changes. With NEPA Assignment, FHWA assigned and the Department assumed all of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA. This assignment includes projects on the State Highway System and Local Assistance Projects off of the State Highway System within the State of California, except for certain categorical exclusions that FHWA assigned to the Department under the 23 USC 326 CE Assignment MOU, projects excluded by definition, and specific project exclusions. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-2 Effective July 1, 2007, Caltrans was assigned environmental review and consultation responsibilities under NEPA pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) 327. For this project, Caltrans is the lead agency under NEPA. The City of Lake Elsinore (City), in cooperation with RCTC and Caltrans, proposes to make improvements and ramp modifications to the Interstate 15 (I-15)/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and to construct a new interchange north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing in the City of Lake Elsinore. The project includes ramp improvements and reconfigurations to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. All Build Alternatives also include the construction of a new freeway interchange north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing. All interchange improvements and construction would occur in the City of Lake Elsinore and the State right-of-way. Figure 1.1 illustrates the project location and vicinity. The following four alternatives have been evaluated, including a “No Build” Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is Alternative 2. Alternative 1: This “No Build” Alternative proposes no improvements and maintains the existing lane and ramp configuration at Railroad Canyon Road. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative): This Alternative proposes to reconstruct the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street; eliminate the existing northbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road; and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Alternative 3: This Alternative proposes to reconstruct the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street; eliminate the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road; reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive; and eliminate the existing southbound and northbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Alternative 4: This Alternative proposes to reconstruct the five signalized intersection (Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive, Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive, Southbound Ramps, Northbound Ramps, and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive) to yield control intersections (Roundabouts) along Railroad Canyon Road; reconstruct/widen and realign the southbound and northbound ramps with a new interchange at Franklin Street. The estimated total capital and right-of-way costs for the Build Alternatives are approximately $97.35 million (Alternative 2), $110.4 million (Alternative 3), and $95.65 million (Alternative 4). Construction is anticipated to begin during the 2018/2019 fiscal year and open to traffic in the 2019/2020 fiscal year. Funding for the project comes from multiple sources including the City of Lake Elsinore, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF), and State and federal sources. The project is included in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016– 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the Southern California region, which was adopted on April 7, 2016. The description provided in the RTP is as follows: “AT I-15/RAILROAD CYN RD IC: CONST 5-MULTI LN ROUNDABOUTS (SUMMERHILL DR – MISSION TR), WIDEN NB ENTRANCE RAMP FROM 2-3 LNS, WIDEN SB ENTRANCE RAMP FROM 1-3 LNS, AND RAMP ACCEL/ DECEL LNS AT RR CYN ROD (PH1); CONST NEW I-15/ FRANKLIN S IC, Regional a nd Proje ct Loc ationSOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-1_reg_loc.mxd (10/4/2016) ?l ?q A»A» !"a$A¦ !"a$ %&g( !"^$ A¥ ?q !"a$ %&h( %&h(!"`$ !"a$A© !"`$ Pacific Ocean A¨ Riverside County San Diego County Orange County San Bernardino County Los AngelesCounty 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental As ses sment FIGURE 1.1 0 10 20 Miles 0 1,000 2,000 Feet S!!N Regional Location S!!N Project Location Project Area FR A N KLINSTREETProject Footprint Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-4 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-5 ADD AUX LNS FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO MAIN ST IC & FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO RR CYN I, REALIGN/WIDEN MAIN ST SB ON RAMP 1-2 LNS, AND CONST FRONTAGE RD ON WS AND ES OF I-15 F.” The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) on September 1, 2016. On May 12, 2017, FTA and FHWA approved Amendment 17-03 to the 2017 FTIP. The updated project description for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange improvement project (Project ID: RIV010206) approved in Amendment 17-03 is as follows: “AT I-15/RR CYN RD IC & NEW I-15/FRANKLIN ST IC: WIDEN RR CYN RD UC FROM 7 TO 8 LNS (SUMMERHILL DR – MISSION TR), RCNSTCT NB EXIT/ ENTRY RAMPS TO HOOK RAMP CNECTN TO GRAPE ST, WIDEN SB ENTRY RAMP FROM 1-2 LNS, WIDEN SHLDRS SB EXIT RAMP, WIDEN GRAPE ST TO CONST DEDICATED RT TN LN AT NB HOOK RAMP AND RR CYN RD, & CONS RAMP ACCEL/DECEL LNS AT RR CYN RD (PH I); CONS NEW I-15/ FRANKLIN ST IC, CONST AUX LNS FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO MAIN ST IC & FROM FRANKLIN ST IC TO RR CYN IC, REALIGN & RECONSTRUCT MAIN ST SB ON RAMP FROM 1-2 LNS, ON WS OF I-15 CONST AUTO CENTER DR EXTNSN FROM EX FRANKLIN ST TO ADOBE ST & ON ES OF I-15 AND CONS CNY ESTATE DR EXT FROM EX FRANKLIN ST TO CAMINO DEL NORTE (PH 2)” 1.2.1 Existing Facility I-15 is a major north-south freeway that begins in the San Diego area and continues northerly through Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and into the State of Nevada. As such, I-15 is a primary interstate truck route for the transport of goods and materials between Southern California and points northeast. Within the Lake Elsinore region, I-15 serves interregional traffic between metropolitan areas and the rapidly growing Lake Elsinore communities. The existing arterial system within the Lake Elsinore area is generally a south-north, west-east grid network with I-15 crossing the grid in a southeast-northwest direction at Railroad Canyon Road. Railroad Canyon Road begins at the intersection of the I-15 southbound ramps westerly of I-15 then continues in a northeasterly direction, and finally becomes Newport Road in the Canyon Lake area. The undercrossing and interchange at Railroad Canyon Road and I-15 was constructed in the early 1980s to serve a predominantly agricultural/rural area. The interchange was constructed as a tight diamond interchange with southbound and northbound entrance and exit ramps. The interchange is located approximately 2.9 miles (mi) north of the Bundy Canyon Road interchange and approximately 1.8 mi south of the Main Street interchange. Within the project limits, I-15 consists of a six-lane freeway, with three lanes in each direction and paved shoulders. The overall median is 70 feet (ft) including a 5 to 8 ft paved inside shoulder in each direction. The remaining 54 to 60 ft of the median is unpaved. The existing Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing was constructed in 1980, as two 54 ft wide, single span, cast-in-place pre-stressed concrete box girder bridge structures with concrete barriers on each side. The existing Railroad Canyon Road interchange configuration is a tight diamond with variable width entrance and exit ramps. All intersection movements at Railroad Canyon Road are controlled by signals. Existing pavement and all ramps on Railroad Canyon Road are asphalt concrete. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-6 1.3 Purpose and Need 1.3.1 Purpose The purpose of the project is to relieve congestion by improving traffic operations (through improvements of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange and correction of merging/diverging freeway and ramp movements) and meeting traffic demands (through construction of a new freeway interchange). The objectives of the project are to: Relieve existing traffic congestion in the vicinity of Railroad Canyon Road at the I-15 ramps; Improve the overall operation of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and surrounding streets; Accommodate the projected 2040 traffic flow and movement on ramp intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on Interstate 15; and Ensure that the facility is able to adequately handle the increasing flow of traffic while maintaining an acceptable level of service (LOS) “D” on the ramp intersections and an acceptable LOS “E” on the ramp merge/diverge points during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. 1.3.2 Need Severe traffic congestion occurs at the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, and congestion is anticipated to worsen in the future. The following traffic study documents were prepared for the project: Traffic Impact Analysis – Interstate 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Road Interchange (August 2009) Supplemental Traffic Memorandum – Updating Existing Traffic Data to 2009 and Opening Year to 2015 (December 2010) Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis- Phase 1 Improvements – I-15 at Railroad Canyon Interchange Opening Year 2015 Analysis (June 2011) Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014) It is anticipated that without any improvements, an LOS of E or F will occur by 2040 at all the intersections of Railroad Canyon Road from Summerhill Drive-Grape Street to Mission Trails- Lakeshore Drive. LOS defines the quality of traffic flow. All I-15 freeway ramp junctions will operate at LOS F during the 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road and Bundy Canyon Road southbound exit ramps, which operate at LOS E during the 2040 a.m. peak hour. Existing congestion and queuing on Railroad Canyon Road and the I-15 ramps is primarily caused by the close proximity of existing signalized intersections at I-15, Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive, Grape Street-Summerhill Drive, and Mission Drive-Lakeshore Drive. This situation creates recurring congestion and impaired traffic circulation and safety. Making the improvements would ensure that the Railroad Canyon Road interchange would be able to handle the increased traffic volumes while maintaining an acceptable LOS D or better in the year 2040 on the ramp intersections during a.m. and p.m. peak hours and an acceptable LOS E or better in the year 2040 on the ramp merge/diverge points during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-7 1.3.2.1 Capacity and Transportation Demand The daily number of vehicles traveling on I-15, Railroad Canyon Road, and Franklin Street in the project area is forecast to increase over time, which would increase traffic congestion in the project area under the existing lane and ramp configurations. The quality of traffic flow on freeway segments is defined in terms of LOS. As illustrated in Table 1.A, there are six LOS designations, ranging from LOS A (free traffic flow with low volumes and high speeds, resulting in low densities) to LOS F (traffic volumes that exceed capacity and result in forced flow operations at low speeds, resulting in high densities). Similarly, the quality of traffic flow can also be defined in terms of LOS for intersections and is illustrated in Table 1.B. These LOS designations also range from LOS A to LOS F. Traffic counts are recorded for passenger cars, two-axle trucks, three-axle trucks, and four-axle trucks. Trucks are factored into Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs) that convert traffic volumes to an equivalent number of passenger cars based on types of trucks. Table 1.A: Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Segments LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤11 B >11–18 C >18–26 D >26–35 E >35–45 F >45 or any component v/c ratio > 1.00 Source: Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (2010). LOS = level of service pc/mi/ln= passenger car/per mile/per lane v/c = volume-to-capacity ratio Table 1.B: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay (sec) A less than or equal to 10 B >10–20 C >20–35 D >35–55 E >55–80 F >80 Source: Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (2010). LOS = level of service sec = seconds Table 1.C identifies the average daily traffic volumes for I-15 freeway mainline segments and ramps through the study area under baseline (2013) conditions and future (2040) conditions. All I-15 mainline segments in the study area currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the southbound segment between Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. All I-15 freeway ramp junctions are operating at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-8 Table 1.C: Baseline (2013) and Future (2040) No Build Freeway Mainline and Ramp Volumes Mainline Segments Volumes A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Existing (2013) I-15 Southbound (Main Street to Railroad Canyon Road) 3,986 5,279 I-15 Southbound (Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road) 3,900 4,500 I-15 Northbound (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road ) 4,050 4,300 I-15 Northbound (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) 4,663 4,305 Future (2040) I-15 Southbound (Main Street to Railroad Canyon Road) 6,037 8,030 I-15 Southbound (Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road) 5,900 6,800 I-15 Northbound (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road ) 6,150 6,550 I-15 Northbound (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) 7,118 6,558 Ramps Volumes A.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour Existing (2013) Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp 313 320 Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp 766 1,283 Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp 680 504 Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp 545 670 Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp 670 840 Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp 543 886 Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp 1,156 891 Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp 412 388 Future (2040) Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp 461 503 Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp 1,210 2,026 Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp 1,073 796 Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp 1,172 1,779 Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp 1,497 1,076 Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp 858 1,400 Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp 1,826 1,408 Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp 800 500 Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-9 Table 1.D identifies the average density and LOS for the I-15 freeway mainline through the study area under baseline (2013) conditions. All I-15 mainline segments in the study area currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Table 1.D: Baseline Year (2013) No Build Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Mainline Segments AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume LOS Volume LOS I-15 Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road 3,900 C 4,500 C Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street 3,986 C 5,279 D I-15 Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road 4,050 C 4,300 C Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street 4,663 D 4,305 C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service pc/mi/ln= passenger car/per mile/per lane Table 1.E provides the mainline freeway LOS for the opening year 2019 No Build scenario (Alternative 1). Comparing the values identified in Table 1.D indicates that the opening year (2019) LOS for one freeway segment within the study area (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street along I-15 southbound) is expected to deteriorate to LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Traffic congestion is generally expected to increase for northbound and southbound traffic during the p.m. peak hour. Table 1.E: Opening Year (2019) No Build Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Mainline Segments AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume LOS Volume LOS I-15 Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road 4,300 C 5,001 D Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street 4,396 C 5,868 E I-15 Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road 4,500 C 4,800 D Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street 5,182 D 4,805 D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service pc/mi/ln= passenger car/per mile/per lane Table 1.F summarizes the results of the freeway mainline area LOS analyses for design year 2040 No Build scenario (Alternative 1). Within the project limits, southbound I-15 is forecast to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour while northbound, I-15 is forecast to operate at LOS E and F during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-10 Table 1.F: Future Year (2040) No Build Alternative Mainline Levels of Service Freeway Segments A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Volume LOS Volume LOS Southbound Main Street to Railroad Canyon Road 6,037 E 8,030 F Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road 5,900 E 6,800 F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road 6,150 E 6,550 F Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street 7,118 F 6,558 F Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). Note: Delay exceeds the limits reported by the Highway Capacity Manual. LOS = level of service Volume = Volume in Passenger Car Equivalents per Hour Table 1.G identifies the average density and LOS at freeway ramp junction areas for baseline year (2013) conditions under the No Build conditions (Alternative 1). All ramp junction areas within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Table 1.H provides the average density and LOS at freeway ramp junction areas for opening year (2019) No Build conditions (Alternative 1). Without the project, all southbound ramps within the study area operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Main Street southbound entrance and the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramps, which operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the Bundy Canyon Road southbound exit ramp, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Table 1.G: Baseline (2013) Freeway Ramp Levels of Service Location A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Density LOS Density LOS Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp 27.2 C 34.0 D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 30.3 D 37.4 E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 28.0 D 30.5 D Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp 29.5 D 27.0 C Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 28.8 D 30.6 D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 30.2 D 32.1 D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 33.5 D 30.8 D Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp 32.9 D 31.2 D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). Density = passenger car equivalents per mile per lane LOS = level of service Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-11 Table 1.H: 2019 No Build Alternative Freeway Ramp Levels of Service Ramp Junctions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Density LOS Density LOS Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp 29.5 D 37.2 F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 33.4 D 41.1 F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 30.3 D 33.3 D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp 31.8 D 35.9 E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 31.7 D 33.4 D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 32.5 D 34.7 D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 36.7 E 33.7 D Main Street Exit Ramp 35.4 E 33.6 D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). Note: Under the No Build Alternative, these ramp junctions would not be constructed. Density = passenger car equivalents per mile per lane LOS = level of service All northbound ramps within the study area operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road northbound entrance and the Main Street northbound exit ramp, which operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. Table 1.I summarizes the results of the ramp junction area LOS analyses for 2040 No Build conditions (Alternative 1). By 2040, all ramp junctions, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp and the Bundy Canyon Road southbound exit ramp (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour only), are forecast to operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the No Build scenario. Table 1.I: 2040 No Build Alternative Freeway Ramp Levels of Service Ramp Junctions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Density LOS Density LOS Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp 38.6 F 56.5 F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 40.3 E 57.8 F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 39.7 F 45.3 F Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp 39.7 E 46.0 F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 42.4 F 43.1 F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 40.0 F 43.6 F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp 48.5 F 44.2 F Main Street Exit Ramp 49.0 F 43.7 F Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). Density = Passenger Car Equivalents Per Mile Per Lane LOS = level of service Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-12 Table 1.J identifies the LOS for study area intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in the baseline (2013), opening (2019), and future (2040) No Build conditions. As identified in Table 1.J, in the opening year (2019), all intersections in the study area, with the exception of three, are currently operating at satisfactory LOS. However, in the future year (2040), all study area intersections with the exception of Franklin Street at Avenue 6 (a.m. peak hour only), Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive (a.m. and p.m. peak hours), and Franklin Street/Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive (a.m. and p.m. peak hours), are expected to operate at LOS E or F during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 1.J: Baseline (2013), Opening (2019), and Future Year (2040) No Build Alternative Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Baseline (2013) Opening (2019) Future (2040) Baseline (2013) Opening (2019) Future (2040) Franklin Street at Avenue 6 B B B C C F Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A A A A B Franklin Street/Canyon View Drive- Grunder Drive B A B B B C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B C E C D F Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive B C E C C F Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 Southbound Ramps D D F E F F Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 Northbound Ramps E E F F F F Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street- Summerhill Drive F F F F F F Main Street/I-15 Southbound Ramps C D F B F F Main Street/I-15 Northbound Ramps C F F C F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte B C F C E F Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS The average accident rate on the I-15 mainline and selected entrance and exit ramps is summarized in Table 1.K. As identified in Table 1.K, within the project limits, the combined actual accident rate of 0.32 is below the combined total freeway mainline statewide average accident rate of 0.87. In addition, the actual accident rate of 0.23 (northbound mainline) and 0.41 (southbound mainline) is below the northbound and southbound mainline statewide average accident rate of 0.87. All actual ramp accident rates (0.42 to 1.38) within the project limits are lower than the statewide average accident rate of 0.63 to 1.01, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road northbound exit ramp, which reflects an accident rate of 1.26; the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp, which reflects an accident rate of 1.38; and the Main Street northbound exit ramp, which reflects an accident rate of 1.09. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-13 Table 1.K: Accident Rates for the I-15 Mainline Freeway Location Actual Accident Rates Average Accident Rates (Statewide) Fatal Fatal + Injury Total Fatal Fatal+ Injury Total Riv-15-18.3/21.0-Combined 0.003 0.12 0.32 0.004 0.27 0.87 Riv-15-18.3/21.0-NB Mainline Route 15 0.000 0.09 0.23 0.004 0.27 0.87 Riv-15-18.3/21.0-SB Mainline Route 15 0.006 0.14 0.41 0.004 0.27 0.87 Riv-15-18.930-SB Entrance Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road 0.000 0.11 0.21 0.002 0.22 0.63 Riv-15-18.937-NB Exit Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road 0.000 0.21 1.26 0.003 0.35 1.01 Riv-15-19.308-NB Entrance Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road 0.000 0.18 0.43 0.002 0.22 0.63 Riv-15-19.365-SB Exit Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road 0.000 0.57 1.38 0.003 0.35 1.01 Riv-15-20.661-SB Entrance Ramp at Main Street 0.000 0.00 0.67 0.002 0.22 0.63 Riv-15-20.732-NB Exit Ramp at Main Street 0.000 0.22 1.09 0.003 0.35 1.01 Source: Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (September 2015). Note: Data are from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2014. I-15 = Interstate 15 As indicated by the primary collision factor data identified in Table 1.L, the primary collision factor at the Railroad Canyon Road northbound exit ramp between Post Mile (PM) 18.937 and PM 19.365 was from speeding, which accounted for 50.0 percent of all accidents at this location. The primary collision factor at the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp between PM 19.365 and PM 20.661 was also from speeding, which accounted for 54.5 percent of all accidents at this location. The primary collision factor at the Main Street southbound entrance ramp between PM 20.661 and PM 20.732 was from speeding, which accounted for 66.7 percent of all accidents at this location. The primary collision factor at the Main Street southbound exit ramp between PM 20.661 and PM 20.732 was also from speeding, which accounted for 40.0 percent of all accidents at this location. As indicated by the data identified in Table 1.M, the most common accidents at the Railroad Canyon Road northbound exit ramp were rear-end collisions (41.7 percent), broadside collisions (25.0 percent), and hit objects (25.0 percent). The most common accidents at the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp were rear-end collisions (68.2 percent), broadside collisions (13.6 percent), and head-on and sideswipe collisions (9.1 percent). The most common accidents at the Main Street southbound entrance ramp were rear-end collisions (67.7 percent), and sideswipe collisions (33.3 percent). The most common accidents at the Main Street southbound exit ramp were rear-end collisions (60.0 percent), and broadside collisions and other (20.0 percent). These accidents were attributed to speeding and existing congestion and queuing on I-15. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-14 Table 1.L: Primary Collision Factors for Railroad Canyon Road Northbound and Southbound Exit Ramps and Main Street Southbound Entrance and Exit Ramps Primary Collision Factors Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp Main Street SB Entrance Ramp Main Street SB Exit Ramp Influence of Alcohol 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% Following Too Close 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Failure to Yield 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% Improper Turn 25.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% Speeding 50.0% 54.5% 66.7% 40.0% Other Violations 25.0% 18.2% 0.0% 20.0% Improper Driving 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Than Driver 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% Unknown 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 20.0% Fell Asleep 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Not Stated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Source: Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (September 2015). Note: Data are from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2014. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Table 1.M: Types of Collision for Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp and Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp Types of Collisions Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp Main Street SB Entrance Ramp Main Street SB Exit Ramp Head-On 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% Sideswipe 8.3% 9.1% 33.3% 0.0% Rear-End 41.7% 68.2% 67.7% 60.0% Broadside 25.0% 13.6% 0.0% 20.0% Hit Object 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Overturn 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Auto-Pedestrian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% Not Stated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Source: Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (September 2015). Note: Data are from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2014. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Existing LOS deficiencies during the p.m. peak hour are attributable to five closely spaced signalized intersections along Railroad Canyon Road (between Summerhill Drive – Grape Street and Mission Trail – Lakeshore Drive). This condition interferes with the capacity and function of the interchange and could contribute to the frequency of rear-end collision accidents occurring on this interchange. The operational improvements associated with the interchange modifications is expected to decrease the overall accident rate by reducing congestion and queuing on the freeway ramps and Railroad Canyon Road. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-15 1.3.2.2 Economic Development Continued growth in housing, retail, and commercial development will require Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street to be improved to its ultimate configuration within the project limits to accommodate future traffic demands. In conformance with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, the Build Alternatives considered included Railroad Canyon Road being widened at minimum, to a six-lane facility (three through lanes in each direction) with dual left-turn and right-turn lanes where necessary. The Build Alternatives considered also included a new Franklin Street four-lane overcrossing to accommodate the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange. The existing Franklin Street overcrossing will remain in place to another crossing of I-15. Existing land uses in the study area surrounding the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange are characterized by urbanized development, including commercial, office, recreational, and residential. Existing land uses in the study area surrounding the planned I-15/ Franklin Street interchange currently consist of vacant land and residential uses. Based on Table 3.1-2 of the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), land use designations in the City’s General Plan area include 9,631 acres of residential uses, 1,501 acres of business-related uses, 354 acres of mixed use, 3,787 acres of public/quasi-public uses, and 4,325 total acres of open space uses (parks or permanent open spaces). The remaining acreage within the City that is not subject to development includes flood control facilities and road rights-of-way. Existing land uses adjacent to the project site are designated by the General Plan as Public/ Institutional, General Commercial, and Medium-Density Residential. The Public/Institutional designation is typically located along major transportation corridors and indicates areas owned and maintained by public agencies. This designation allows for uses such as schools, roads, utility substations, sewage treatment plants, civic facilities, and cemeteries. The General Commercial designation provides for a wide range of retail and service uses including stores, restaurants, hotels, theaters, offices, and specialized services. Medium-density residential uses allow for up to 12 dwelling units per acre and typically consists of a range of attached and detached single-family units as well as multiple family units. Based on SCAG population projections for the years 2020 through 2035, the City of Lake Elsinore is expected to grow by approximately 33 percent. The City does not currently have a growth management/control ordinance in place. 1.3.2.3 Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages The City of Lake Elsinore is served by transit routes (Bus Routes 8, 22, 40, and 206) offered by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). These routes service different parts of the City as well as surrounding communities such as Temecula, Murrieta, Sun City, Wildomar, Menifee, and Riverside. The existing bus routes within the project limits include: RTA Route 8, Lake Elsinore Walmart to Lake Elsinore Outlet Center RTA Route 40, Lake Elsinore to Sun City The above bus routes pass through the project area at Railroad Canyon Road and/or Grape Street. The only bus stop located within the project area is at the Lake Elsinore Walmart, which is located within the Walmart shopping center (on the southeast corner of the intersection of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road). There is also a commuter link route between Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, and the Corona Metrolink station. The commuter link service is provided by the RTA and offers express Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-16 bus routes for long-distance commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster, and Sprinter rail stations. The existing commuter link route within the project vicinity is Route 206. Metrolink is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which provides commuter rail services to the Counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange, and Ventura. There are no Metrolink stations within the City; however, the RTA commuter link enables people within the City to connect to the nearest Metrolink station in Corona. Other transportation facilities in the region that City residents and workers utilize include the Ontario International Airport, French Valley Airport, and Hemet-Ryan Airport. The Ontario International Airport is a commercial service airport approximately 41 mi northwest of the I-15/ Railroad Canyon Road interchange. French Valley Airport and Hemet-Ryan Airport are general aviation airports owned by the County of Riverside. There are no parallel or contiguous transportation facilities that could reduce traffic demand at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange that would offset the need for improvements to this interchange. 1.3.2.4 Air Quality Improvements As referenced above, there are various modes of transportation available in the project area, including RTA bus routes, a Metrolink commuter link, and bicycle paths along roadways. However, existing and approved planned development of the area surrounding these two interchanges would generate more trips, which is anticipated to lead to greater congestion in the project area. This project is designed to alleviate existing and future congestion at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps during peak hours to improve traffic flow through the interchange and to provide additional access in the I-15/Franklin Street area. Ramp metering would also be employed to this end. 1.3.2.5 Independent Utility and Logical Termini Federal regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 771.111 [f]) require “independent utility” and “logical termini” be established for a transportation improvement project evaluated under NEPA. The following discusses the specific criteria listed in 23 CFR 771.111(f) and how the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project satisfies these criteria in separate analysis: a) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; b) Have independent utility or independent significance (be usable and require a reasonable expenditure event if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made); and c) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. a) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope. Railroad Canyon Road is a regionally important east/west route within the City of Lake Elsinore. It is currently a four-lane arterial east and west of the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange; the section between the ramp terminal intersections is also four lanes. Alternatives 2 and 3 would widen the roadway to six through lanes at a minimum through the interchange. The easterly terminus is the point east of the interchange at which the existing Railroad Canyon Road would transition from six lanes to four lanes and the westerly terminus is approximately 500 ft west of the ramp terminal intersection for Railroad Canyon Road with the I-15 northbound Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-17 entrance- and exit-ramps. This provides logical termini by widening Railroad Canyon Road through the ramp terminal intersections before transitioning back to a four-lane section west of I-15. On I-15, the improvement limits also provide logical termini by establishing northerly and southerly limits based on the maximum length of the required on-ramp and off-ramp modifications. Alternative 4 of the project would reconstruct the roadway to accommodate five roundabouts through the interchange from Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive to Grape Street-Summerhill Drive. The easterly terminus is the point east of interchange where the existing Railroad Canyon Road would transition from six lanes to four lanes and the westerly terminus is approximately 400 ft west of the Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive intersection for Railroad Canyon Road. This provides logical termini by reconstruction of Railroad Canyon Road through the ramps and local street roundabouts before transitioning back to a four-lane section west and east of I-15. On I-15, the improvement limits also provide logical termini by establishing northerly and southerly limits based on the maximum length of the required on-ramp and off-ramp modifications. As described earlier in this section, the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project specifically addresses existing and forecasted congestion and traffic volumes at the interchange. The project proposes improvements on Railroad Canyon Road at its crossing of I-15 to accommodate the ramp and mainline improvements, with those improvements of sufficient length on the I-15 mainline and the ramp facilities to address the identified purposes of the project. In addition, the project proposes the construction of a new I-15 interchange approximately 1,160 ft north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing. The improvements at the existing Railroad Canyon Road interchange and the future Franklin Street interchange would effectively address both the congestion at the Railroad Canyon Road interchange and the merge/diverge of the ramp facilities. b) Have independent utility or independent significance (be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made). The project has independent utility as it will improve traffic conditions on Railroad Canyon Road and the ramps connecting I-15 to Railroad Canyon Road. These improvements would benefit the traveling public even if no additional improvements were made to either Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, or I-15. c) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. The project would meet the identified need for congestion relief and merge/diverge improvements as an independent project and is not dependent on any other projects to meet the identified purpose for the interchange improvements. The project would not restrict consideration of alternatives to improve Railroad Canyon Road east of I-15 (i.e., alternatives to widen Railroad Canyon Road on one or both sides of the road would not be precluded). Similarly, the project would not restrict consideration of alternatives to improve Franklin Street east or west of I-15. The project would also not restrict considerations of alternatives to improve the portion of I-15 located within the project area. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-18 1.4 Project Description This section describes the proposed action and the design alternatives that were developed by a multidisciplinary team to achieve the project purpose and need while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. The alternatives are Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative), Build Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative), Build Alternative 3, and Build Alternative 4. The project (Build Alternative 2) includes ramp improvements and reconfigurations to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. The project also includes the construction of a new freeway interchange north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing. The regional location and regional vicinity of the project are illustrated in Figure 1.1. All interchange improvements and construction would occur in the City of Lake Elsinore. The purpose of the project is to relieve congestion by improving traffic operations (through improvements of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange and correction of merging/diverging freeway and ramp movements) and meeting traffic demands (through construction of a new freeway interchange), reducing existing and future congestion by widening Railroad Canyon Road to six lanes, eliminating the northbound ramp intersection, both northbound and southbound ramp intersections, or conversion of all five closely spaced signalized intersections to roundabouts, and improving the overall operational characteristics of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange. The purpose of the new interchange at Franklin Street is to relieve congestion at the adjacent interchanges. 1.5 Alternatives 1.5.1 Project Alternatives For build alternatives to be considered feasible, they must meet the project’s purpose and need while maintaining operational performance at the interchange ramps, on the I-15 mainline, or at local intersections. Project cost and severity of impacts are also considered. Due to the high cost of constructing the improvements as one entire project, it was determined that the entire project could be divided into two viable, cost-effective phased segments with independent utility and logical termini. This resulted in identifying two separate phases: Phase 1: Construct all related modifications to the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, including ramp acceleration and deceleration lanes. Phase 2: Construct all related modifications to the new Franklin Street interchange, including frontage roads, auxiliary lanes to Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, and the realignment and widening of southbound Main Street entrance ramp and install traffic signals at the Main Street ramp intersections. 1.5.1.1 Build Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) This alternative proposes to reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration at Grape Street, eliminate the existing northbound diamond ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at new Franklin Street. Phase 1: This phase of Alternative 2 would reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration at Grape Street, eliminate the existing northbound diamond ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-19 Canyon Road. The southbound entrance ramp would be widened to two lanes starting at Railroad Canyon Road and merge to a single lane as it connects with the planned auxiliary lane to southbound I-15. This phase of the alternative also proposes to construct an acceleration lane at the entrance ramps and a deceleration lane at the exit ramps. Phase 2: This phase of Alternative 2 would construct all related modifications to the new Franklin Street interchange, including frontage roads, auxiliary lanes to Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, and realign and widen to two lanes the southbound Main Street entrance ramp and install traffic signals at the Main Street ramp intersections. ALTERNATIVE 3 This alternative proposes to reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration at Grape Street; eliminate the existing northbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive; and eliminate the existing southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at new Franklin Street. Phase 1: This phase of Alternative 3 would reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration at Grape Street, eliminate the existing northbound diamond ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration at Casino Drive, and eliminate the existing southbound diamond ramps at Railroad Canyon Road. This phase of the alternative also proposes to construct an acceleration lane at the entrance ramps and a deceleration lane at the exit ramps. Phase 2: This phase of Alternative 3 would construct all related modifications to the new Franklin Street interchange, including frontage roads, auxiliary lanes to Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, and realign and widen to two lanes the southbound Main Street entrance ramp and install traffic signals at the Main Street ramp intersections. ALTERNATIVE 4 Reconstruct the five signalized intersection (Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive, Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive, Southbound Ramps, Northbound Ramps, and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive) to yield control intersection (roundabouts) along Railroad Canyon Road; reconstruct/widen the southbound and northbound ramps with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Phase 1: This phase of Alternative 4 would reconstruct the five signalized intersections (Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive, Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive, I-15 southbound ramps, I-15 northbound ramps, and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive) to yield control intersections (roundabouts) along Railroad Canyon Road. This phase also proposes to construct an acceleration lane at each entrance ramp and a deceleration lane at each exit ramp. Phase 2: This phase of Alternative 4 would construct all related modifications to the new Franklin Street interchange, including frontage roads, auxiliary lanes to Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, and realign and widen to two lanes the southbound Main Street entrance ramp and install traffic signals at the Main Street ramp intersections. The project considers intersection lane modifications at the existing interchange as a primary component of the operational improvement. Since intersection lane improvements at an existing intersection would not change traffic patterns dramatically but would merely improve operations, the No Build Alternative’s volumes were applied to the traffic model to predict traffic volumes for the Build Alternative scenarios, which can be modified to include additional turn lanes. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-20 1.5.1.2 No Build Alternative ALTERNATIVE 1 This “No Build” Alternative proposes no improvements and maintains the existing lane and ramp configuration at Railroad Canyon Road. Under Alternative 1, no interchange reconstruction would occur. This alternative would not improve operations, increase highway capacity, or reduce highway congestion within the project area. As shown in Table 1.F, LOS on all freeway mainline segments in the study area would deteriorate to unsatisfactory LOS by 2040 without improvements. Additionally, as shown in Table 1.I, LOS on all freeway ramps in the study area would deteriorate to unsatisfactory LOS by 2040 without improvements. Furthermore, as shown in Table 1.J, LOS on all study area intersections (with the exception of the Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive and Franklin Street/Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive intersections) would deteriorate to unsatisfactory LOS by 2040 without improvements. This alternative would not maximize mobility and accessibility of the regional transportation system as existing freeway deficiencies would remain in current and future year conditions. The No Build Alternative for the proposed project is not consistent with the mobility goals of the Regional Congestion Management Program. Additionally, with no improvements implemented at the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, congestion would remain high and air quality would not improve over the existing condition. Other direct effects of the No Build Alternative include increased maintenance costs for aging facilities. Potential indirect effects of the No Build Alternative could include negative impacts to the local economy due to severe congestion, reduced accessibility, and reduced mobility. In a cumulative context, the No Build Alternative has the potential to result in cumulative impacts if regional congestion is addressed through multiple smaller improvement projects that would be implemented over an extended period of time. 1.5.1.3 Common Design Features of the Build Alternatives The following design features are the same for all of the Build Alternatives: RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA Auxiliary and deceleration lanes at ramp entrance and exits. Construct retaining walls. Construct best management practice (BMP) facilities (water quality basins, bio-filtration swales, and strips). Construct maintenance vehicle pull-outs. Install ramp meter systems, California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforcement areas, and a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) preferential lane at all entrance ramps. Install erosion control and new landscape. FRANKLIN STREET INTERCHANGE AREA Construct a new four-lane overcrossing/interchange approximately 1,160 ft north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing. The existing Franklin Street overcrossing would be protected in place and kept in operation after construction of the project. Construct new northbound diamond ramps. Construct new southbound diamond ramps. Construct auxiliary lanes to Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street. Install ramp meter systems, CHP enforcement areas, and an HOV preferential lane at all entrance ramps. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-21 Construct, realign, widen, and extend Auto Center Drive to tie into new Franklin Street- Avenue 6 to Flint Street. Construct, realign, and extend Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive. Install traffic signals at ramp intersections and adjacent local road intersections. MAIN STREET INTERCHANGE AREA Realign and widen to two lanes the southbound entrance ramp to provide a standard merge- diverge distance to the new southbound exit ramp at Franklin Street. Construct auxiliary lanes to Franklin Street. Install ramp meter system, CHP enforcement area, and an HOV preferential lane at southbound entrance ramp. Install traffic signals at ramp intersections. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS Under all of the Build Alternatives, construction of improvements would require 113 Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs), totaling an area of 1,390,395 square feet (sf). These TCEs would be required in all four quadrants of the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and the I-15/Franklin Street interchange to construct and widen local streets, and construct ramps, retaining walls, and the Franklin Street interchange. MANDATORY DESIGN EXCEPTIONS A Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards was approved on April 13, 2010, and a Supplemental Mandatory Design Exception was approved on March 22, 2011. The following are the Mandatory Design Exceptions. Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 1 (all Alternatives), Interchange Spacing: The minimum interchange spacing shall be one mile in urban areas, two miles in rural areas, and two miles between freeway-to-freeway interchanges and local street interchanges. The distance between the New Franklin Street interchange and the existing Main Street interchange and the New Franklin Street interchange and the existing Railroad Canyon Road interchange is non-standard as the standard distance is 1.0 mile and the planned distance is 0.9 mile. Auxiliary lanes would be provided to further mitigate the non-standard interchange spacing. There is also sufficient weaving1 distance between the new Franklin Street IC and adjacent interchange’s to allow LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. 2040 design year peak hours, with the exception of the Franklin Street southbound entrance ramp to Railroad Canyon southbound exit ramp that would operate at LOS E during the 2040 p.m. peak hour. Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 2 (all Alternatives), Shoulder Width: The standard inside shoulder width for freeways is 10 ft. 1 A weaving section is the length of one-way roadway in which vehicles are crossing paths, changing lanes, or merging with through traffic as they enter or exit a freeway. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-22 The freeway locations identified in Table 1.N have existing non-standard inside shoulder widths. The I-15 freeway median within the project limits is 70 to 100 ft wide and unpaved except for the inside shoulders. Although a 10 ft wide inside paved shoulder is not currently provided in the project limits and the project does not propose to widen the existing inside freeway shoulder widths, the 30 ft clear recovery zone to the inside (in the median) is provided, allowing errant vehicles to recover even in the absence of the standard 10 ft wide paved shoulder. The 70 to 100 ft wide median also provides more than a 10 ft wide clear shoulder even if only 5 to 8 ft of it is paved. Table 1.N: Non-Standard Freeway Shoulders Freeway Location Existing (Proposed) Inside Shoulder Width Standard Inside Shoulder Width Northbound STA 975+51 to STA 1013+90 5 ft 10 ft Northbound STA 1021+58 to STA 1098+42 8 ft 10 ft Northbound STA 1105+30 to 1107+10 8 ft 10 ft Southbound STA 969+04 to STA 1014+10 5 ft 10 ft Southbound STA 1022+83 to STA 1027+33 8 ft 10 ft Southbound STA 1094+78 to STA 1107+10 8 ft 10 ft Source: Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory and Advisory Design Standards (September 2015). ft = foot/feet STA = Station Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 3 (Alternative 2), Distance Between Ramp Intersection and Local Road: The standard minimum distance between the ramp intersections and local road intersections shall be 400 ft. The distance between the ramp intersection and local roads is an existing non-standard condition and is planned to remain as it currently exists. The distance between the southbound ramp intersection and Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive is 259 ft (existing curb return to curb return distance is 265 ft). Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 4 (Alternative 2), Cross Slope: The standard cross slope to be used for new construction on the traveled way for all types of surfaces shall be 2 percent. The planned ramps connect to the local road at a cross slope varying from 0.178 percent to 4 percent. This cannot be avoided without reconstructing the intersection grades. Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 5 (Alternatives 2 and 4), Distance Between Ramp Intersection and Local Road: The standard minimum shoulder distance between the ramp intersections and local road intersections shall be 400 ft. The distance between the ramp intersection and local roads is an existing non-standard condition and is planned to remain as it currently exists. The planned distance between the southbound ramp intersection and Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive is 287 ft (existing curb return to curb return distance is 265 ft). The planned distance between the northbound ramp intersection and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive is 100 ft (existing curb return to curb return distance is 115 ft). To provide for the required 400 ft between ramp and local road intersections, realignment or closure of the local streets and/or business relocation would be required. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-23 Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 6 (Alternative 4), Standards for Superelevation:1 Based on a maximum superelevation rate for a given condition (emax) selected by the designer for one of the conditions, superelevation rates from Table 202.2 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015) shall be used within the given range of the curve radii. A non-standard superelevation rate is proposed for locations identified in Table 1.O. Table 1.O: Non-Standard Superelevation (SE) Rates Freeway Location Radius (ft) Standard SE Rate Proposed SE Rate Comfortable Speed Location 2 - Northbound Exit Ramp 740 11% 8% 50 mph Location 3 - Northbound Exit Ramp 437 12% 8% 38 mph Location 4 - Southbound Entrance Ramp 250 12% 8% 35 mph Location 5 - Southbound Exit Ramp 127 12% 8% 35 mph Location 6 - Southbound Exit Ramp 740 11% 8% 45 mph Source: Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory and Advisory Design Standards (September 2015). ft = foot/feet mph = miles per hour Northbound Exit Ramp (Locations 2 and 3). To provide a standard superelevation rate, the ramp would have to be realigned and lengthened. This would require additional right-of-way acquisition, which would require relocation of the service station at the corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Due to the short distance between the intersection at the roundabout design limit at Railroad Canyon Road and the first curve, the maximum rate of change would exceed 6 percent per 100 ft if a standard superelevation rate is used. The location of the curves where the design exception is requested is near the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road, where the design speed is approximately 30 mph, and the comfortable speed for this curve is 38 mph (Location 3) and 50 mph (Location 2). Southbound Entrance Ramp (Location 4). To provide a standard superelevation rate, the roundabout would have to be moved further east and would encroach into the existing southbound undercrossing bridge. Due to the short distance between the intersection at the roundabout design limit at Railroad Canyon Road and the first curve, the maximum rate of change would exceed 6 percent per 100 ft if a standard superelevation rate is used. The location of the curve where the design exception is requested is near the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road where the design speed is approximately 30 mph and the comfortable speed for this curve is 35 mph. Southbound Exit Ramp (Locations 5 and 6). To provide a standard superelevation rate, the ramp would have to be realigned and lengthened. This would require additional right-of-way acquisition, which would require relocation of the retail center at the corner of Railroad Canyon Road and the southbound exit ramp. Due to the short distance between the intersection at the roundabout design limit at Railroad Canyon Road and the first curve, the maximum rate of change would exceed 6 percent per 100 ft if a standard superelevation rate is used. The location of the curves where the design exception is requested is near the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road, where the design speed is approximately 30 mph, and the comfortable speed for this curve is 35 mph (Location 5) and 45 mph (Location 6). 1 The rotation of the pavement on the approach to and through a horizontal curve intended to assist the driver by counteracting the lateral acceleration produced by tracking the curve. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-24 Mandatory Design Exception Feature No. 7 (Alternative 4), Shared (Pedestrian and Bicycle) Facility Widths: A minimum 2 ft wide shoulder, composed of the same pavement material as the path or all weather surfaces, free of vegetation, shall be provided adjacent to the traveled way of the path when not on the structure. The standard shoulder width between the Railroad Canyon Road northbound entrance ramp and Summerhill Drive, and the northeast corner of the intersection at Railroad Canyon Road and Summerhill Drive is non-standard as the standard width is 2 ft and the proposed distance is 0 ft. To provide for the required 2 ft shoulder width, additional business acquisitions would be required. ADVISORY DESIGN EXCEPTIONS A Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards was approved on March 24, 2010. A Supplemental Advisory Design Exception was approved on March 21, 2011. The following are the Advisory Design Exceptions. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 1 (Alternative 2), Angle of Intersection: When a right angle cannot be provided due to physical constraints, the interior angle should be designed as close to 90 degrees as is practical, but should not be less than 75 degrees. Mitigation should be considered for the affected intersection design features. The interior angle of intersection of Railroad Canyon Road at the Southbound Exit Ramp is 62 degrees in its existing condition. The existing intersection provides a stopping sight distance of 550 ft (50 mph). Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 2 (Alternatives 2 and 3), Access Control at Ramp Termini: For new construction, access control should extend 100 ft beyond the end of the curb return or ramp radius in urban areas and 300 ft in rural areas, or as far as necessary to ensure that entry onto the facility does not impair operational characteristics. The planned north access control opposite the Grape Street ramps extends 50 ft beyond the end of the Grape Street northbound entrance ramp curb return. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 3 (all Alternatives), Superelevation Transitions and Runoff: Standard Superelevation Transition Lengths are 300 ft. Non-standard superelevation transitions lengths are planned at the Grape Street Northbound Exit Ramp (200 ft) and the Grape Street Northbound Entrance Ramp (235 ft). For runoff, two-thirds of the superelevation runoff should be on the tangent and one-third within the curve. Table 1.P summarizes the planned non-standard runoff lengths. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 4 (all Alternatives), New Construction, Two Curb Ramp Design: On new construction, two Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps should be installed at each corner as shown on the Standard Plans. The following intersections have single curb cut access ramps only: Location 1 (Franklin Street and Southbound Ramps); Location 2 (Franklin Street and Northbound Ramps); Location 3 (Main Street Southbound Ramps); and Location 4 (Franklin Street and Auto Center Drive). At all intersections, it was determined that the use of two ramps was not practical because the location of crosswalks and signals associated with the two curb ramps would create operational conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-25 Table 1.P: Non-Standard Runoff (1/3L and 2/3L) Location (Ramp) Standard SE Length Reg 2/3 Runoff Reg 1/3 Runoff Beginning Transition Ending Transition Planned SE Runoff Grape Street Northbound Exit Ramp 300 200 100 (2/3) 1002+14 (2/3) 1005+02 (BC) 288 300 200 100 (1/3) 1005+02 (BC) (1/3) 1005+14 12 300 200 100 1005+14 1007+14 200 300 200 100 1005+14 1007+14 Grape Street Northbound Entrance Ramp 300 200 100 (2/3) 1005+43 (2/3) 1006+44 (BC) 101 300 200 100 (1/3) 1006+44 (BC) (1/3) 1007+78 134 Source: Supplemental Traffic Memorandum – Updating Existing Traffic Data to 2009 and Opening Year to 2015 (March 2011). SE = superelevation Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 5 (all Alternatives), Location and Design of Ramp Intersections on Crossroads: Ramp terminals should connect where the grade of the overcrossing is 4 percent or less to avoid potential overturning of trucks. The planned northbound exit ramp connects to existing Grape Street at a location where the grade is approximately 4.44 percent to 4.66 percent and the northbound entrance ramp connects to existing Grape Street at a location where the grade is approximately 4.10 percent. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 6 (all Alternatives), Distance Between Ramp Intersection and Local Road: The standard minimum shoulder distance between the ramp intersections and local road intersections shall be 400 ft. The preferred minimum distance should be 500 ft. The planned curb return to curb return distance between the Franklin Street southbound ramp intersection and Auto Center Drive is 426 ft and the planned curb return to curb return distance between the Franklin Street northbound ramp intersection and Camino Del Norte is 404 ft. In order to provide for the preferred 500 ft distance between ramp and local road intersections, the frontage road would have to be realigned causing right-of-way impacts to existing businesses and the County landfill. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 7 (all Alternatives), Standard for Grade: The minimum grades should be 0.5 percent in snow country and 0.3 percent at other locations. Railroad Canyon Road was constructed with a centerline profile grade of -0.17 percent to - 0.20 percent from east of the Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive intersection to east of the Grape Street-Summerhill Drive intersection (approximate station number 16+50 to station number 29+00) and a -2 percent crown. Railroad Canyon Road is superelevated at 6 percent just through the Grape Street-Summerhill Drive intersection (approximate station number 25+00 to station number 34+00). Maintaining the existing grade on Railroad Canyon Road would not cause any flooding issues. The 10 percent (Q(10)) design storm would be maintained within the shoulder or 1/2 outer lane per HDM Table 731.3. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 8 (All Alternatives), Superelevation Transition and Runoff: A superelevation transition should be designed in accordance with the diagram and tabular data shown in Figure 202.5A of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015) to satisfy the requirements of safety, comfort, and pleasing appearance. Two-thirds of the superelevation runoff should be on the tangent and one-third within the curve. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-26 All Alternative 4 Railroad Canyon Locations. The roundabout design provides PRC to slow vehicles as they approach the roundabout. The Point of Reversing Curves (PRC) does not allow for standard superelevation transitions lengths and runoff (1/3 and 2/3). The roundabout design provides PRC to slow vehicles as they approach the roundabout. The PRC combined with a standard 12 percent superelevation and the difference in superelevation from a minus to a plus superelevation creates a condition that would exceed the 6 percent per 100 ft maximum superelevation rate. By reducing the superelevation to 8 percent, this allows the superelevation of the curve to be 6 percent per 100 ft. Since the curves are located to the approach of the roundabout where slower speeds are anticipated, comfortable speed was chosen for design. A comfortable speed of 25 mph is achieved prior to the design limits of the roundabout. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 9 (Alternative 4), Compound Curves:1 Superelevation of compound curves should follow the procedure as shown in Figure 202.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015). Where feasible, the criteria in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Index 202.5 should apply. Where compound curves are necessary, the shorter radius should be at least two-thirds the longer radius when the shorter is 1,000 ft or less. On one-way roads, the larger radius should follow the smaller radius. The roundabout design provides PRC to slow vehicles as they approach the roundabout. In addition, the roundabout design further reduces the speed with an introduction of a point of compound curves (PCC) prior to entering the design limit of the roundabout. The PCC do not allow for standard superelevation transition lengths and runoff (1/3 and 2/3). It is proposed to provide a 6 percent per 100 ft maximum superelevation transition rate. To provide standard superelevation transition length and runoff at the compound curve location, the northbound ramp roundabout would have to be moved further east encroaching into the Grape Street-Summerhill Drive roundabout. The relocation/realignment of the roundabout locations would impact several properties. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 10 (Alternative 4), Reversing Curves-Transition Length and Rate: When horizontal curves reverse direction the connecting tangents should be long enough to accommodate the standard superelevation runoffs given on Figure 202.5. If this is not possible, the 6 percent per 100 feet rate of change should govern (see Index 202.5(3)). The roundabout design provides PRC to slow vehicles as they approach the roundabout. In addition, the roundabout design further reduces the speed with an introduction of a point of compound curves (PCC) prior to entering the design limit of the roundabout. The PCC do not allow for standard superelevation transition lengths and runoff (1/3 and 2/3). It is proposed to provide a 6 percent per 100 ft maximum superelevation transition rate. To provide standard superelevation transition length and runoff at the compound curve location, the northbound ramp roundabout would have to be moved further east encroaching into the Grape Street-Summerhill Drive roundabout. The relocation/realignment of the roundabout locations would impact several properties. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 11 (Alternative 4), Standard Designs: Design of freeway entrances and exits should conform to the standard designs illustrated in Figure 504.2A-B (single lane), and Figure 504.3L (two lane entrances and exits) and/or Figure 504.4 (diverging branch connections), as appropriate, in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015). 1 The combination of two or more simple circular curves of different radii having their curvature in the same direction. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-27 The existing northbound entrance ramp is a short ramp that merges with the freeway prior to the San Jacinto River Bridge with a 2,400 ft radius, curving right. To make the Railroad Canyon Road northbound entrance standard, the ramp would have to be lengthened by approximately 500 ft. Lengthening the Railroad Canyon Road northbound entrance ramp will require the widening of the San Jacinto River bridge. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 12 (Alternative 4), Lane Drop. Depending on approach geometry and speed, the standard lane drop transition between the limit line and the 6 ft separation point should be accomplished with a taper of between 30:1 and 50:1 (longitudinal to lateral). The existing northbound entrance ramp is a short ramp that merges with the freeway prior to the San Jacinto River Bridge. To provide two general purpose lanes and one HOV preferential lane, without impacting the San Jacinto River Bridge, it was decided to provide a 16:1 lane drop. The entrance ramp will merge into an acceleration/auxiliary lane. Increasing the lane drop taper would result in widening the existing San Jacinto River bridge. Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 13 (Alternative 4), Sidewalk and Walkways. The minimum width of a sidewalk should be 8 feet between a curb and a building when in urban and rural main street place types. For all other locations the minimum width of sidewalk should be 6 feet when contiguous to a curb or 5 feet when separated by a planting strip. Due to existing development and right-of-way constraints, the project proposes to reduce the sidewalk width to 5 ft, north of Railroad Canyon Road crossing Summerhill Drive and crossing the I-15 northbound entrance ramp. HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES HOV preferential lanes will be incorporated at all entrance ramps at the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, at the new Franklin Street interchange, and the southbound Main Street on ramp for all Build Alternatives. RAMP METERING All entrance ramps will have ramp meters, except for Alternative 4, at the Railroad Canyon Road northbound on-ramp. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ENFORCEMENT AREAS Provisions for a CHP Enforcement Area have been included in all entrance ramps, except for the new Grape Street and Casino Drive entrance ramps where 10 ft wide shoulders will be provided for Alternatives 2 and 3. The CHP has concurred with the 10 ft wide shoulders at the two entrance ramp locations. PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES There are no Park and Ride Facilities planned for this project. A review of the project site revealed no viable locations for Park and Ride Facilities. The surrounding area at Railroad Canyon Road is fully developed with existing businesses. GEOTECHNICAL BORING AND UTILITY POTHOLING Geotechnical boring and utility potholing activities will be conducted during final design, and the environmental effects of these activities are considered and evaluated in this Final IS/EA. The duration of the geotechnical borings would be 1 day or less at any given geotechnical borehole location. The geotechnical borings typically use small 8-inch-diameter borings drilled Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-28 with a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger or mud rotary drill rig to a minimum depth of 75 feet below ground surface or refusal. If groundwater is encountered at any borehole locations, a well permit will be obtained, and a well may be installed to monitor groundwater levels at these locations. Any water generated during bailing and surging will be contained in a 55-gallon drum and discharged off site. An engineer or geologist will supervise the boring explorations and monitoring well installations, observe and classify soil samples, and prepare logs of borings. Upon completion, the borings will be backfilled with soil from the excavation. Utility potholing will be conducted, as needed, within existing local street rights of way to verify locations of underground utilities. Appropriate permits will be obtained from the affected local jurisdiction, and all potholing activities will be conducted in accordance with those permits. UTILITY INVOLVEMENT There are several known utilities within the project limits. The following utility purveyors are located within the project area: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Southern California Gas Company Southern California Edison (SCE) Company Verizon Telephone Time Warner Cable In general, the above utilities can be protected in place with the exception of the overhead SCE distribution lanes (power poles) that will need to be relocated, but it is not expected to have impacts on project delivery. RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT There is no railroad involvement on this project. HIGHWAY PLANTING There is no existing landscaping or mature trees or shrubbery within the project area, with the exception of the Main Street southbound entrance ramp. New landscaping will be incorporated as a separate landscaping project funded from this parent project. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control has been included in the estimated costs. Additionally, the final plans and specifications will include provisions for a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the BMPs would be implemented during construction. All disturbed areas will be treated with permanent erosion control. NOISE BARRIERS Based on the Noise Study Report (NSR) (August 2015) and the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) (December 2015) prepared for the project, there are no noise barriers planned within the project area. ROADWAY REHABILITATION The existing pavement on Railroad Canyon Road and all ramps consist of asphalt concrete (AC). The I-15 freeway travel lanes are concrete with inside AC shoulders and outside concrete Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-29 shoulders. Most of the existing mainline is Portland cement concrete pavement, and the Portland cement concrete/AC shoulder appears to be in fair-to-good condition. The ramps and local roads/streets are generally in fair-to-good condition. Localized areas show unrepaired or patched/filled longitudinal and transverse cracks. In general, rehabilitation of Hot Mixed Asphalt (HMA) pavements (where required) may include flexible or rigid overlay, mill and overlay, lane/shoulder removal and replacement, complete reconstruction/replacement, cold in-place recycling, or a combination thereof. A pavement condition study, along with deflection study (CTM 356)1 and coring to evaluate structural adequacy is commonly performed to select the most appropriate rehabilitation option during final design. Rehabilitation of concrete pavements may generally include grooving; grinding; unbonded rigid overlay with flexible interlayer; crack, seat, and asphalt overlay; or replacement. The selection of the appropriate rigid pavement rehabilitation strategy should be based upon life-cycle costs, load transfer efficiency of the joints, materials testing, ride quality, safety, maintainability, constructability, visual inspection of pavement distress, and other factors listed in Chapter 610 of Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015). Detailed condition surveys, deflectometer studies, and development of rehabilitation strategies and materials were not included in the scope of work for this report. The scope of rehabilitation to be implemented for the project should be defined by the City, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and Caltrans, and the rehabilitation strategy should be selected based on additional studies including pavement condition surveys, coring, and deflection studies (as necessary) and documented in the final materials report during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the project. Most ramps will be reconstructed and/or realigned; therefore, all ramps will have new pavement, thereby eliminating the need for pavement rehabilitation. Local streets outside State jurisdiction will be reconstructed and rehabilitated where necessary. STRUCTURE WORK All planned bridge widening would be compatible with the ultimate I-15 freeway of 10 lanes plus auxiliary lanes (Half Width Standard Typical Cross Section: 1 ft concrete barrier, 10 ft inside shoulder, one 12 ft HOV lane, 4 ft buffer, four 12 ft mixed flow lanes, 12 ft auxiliary lane, where needed, and a 10 ft shoulder). Minimum falsework clearance of 15 ft will be maintained at the new Franklin Street overcrossing. Lighting will be provided at all structure overcrossings and undercrossings where pedestrian facilities are constructed. 1.5.1.4 Unique Features of the Build Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 2 – NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) As illustrated in Figure 1.2, under this alternative, the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange would be reconstructed to provide hook ramps for northbound traffic to enter and exit the freeway on Grape Street. Additional through lanes on Railroad Canyon Road will be constructed, as well as on the freeway ramps in conjunction with a new full movement interchange at Franklin Street. Typical cross sections and profiles for this alternative are illustrated in Appendix H. Alternative 2 proposes the following unique features: 1 Caltrans Materials Engineering and Testing Services conducts specialized laboratory and field testing, provides inspections, and gives expert advice on all phases of transportation engineering involving materials and manufactured products. California Test Method 356 (CTM 356) is the method of examination to obtain flexible pavement deflection measurements for determining pavement rehabilitation requirements. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-30 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 2SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-2_ConceptImprov2.mxd (11/14/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.2 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Detention Basins Staging A rea Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 2 Contour Grading Alt 2 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Proposed TCE Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Index M ap Sheet 1 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-32 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 2SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-2_ConceptImprov2.mxd (11/14/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.2 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Detention Basins Staging A rea Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 2 Contour Grading Alt 2 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Proposed TCE Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Index M ap Sheet 2 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-34 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 2SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-2_ConceptImprov2.mxd (11/14/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.2 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Detention Basins Staging A rea Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 2 Contour Grading Alt 2 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Proposed TCE Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Index M ap Sheet 3 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-36 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 2SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-2_ConceptImprov2.mxd (11/14/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.2 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Detention Basins Staging A rea Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 Proposed RO W, Alternative 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 2 Contour Grading Alt 2 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Proposed TCE Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Index M ap Sheet 4 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-38 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-39 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area Widen Railroad Canyon Road under the freeway to eight travel lanes (three lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes to the southbound entrance ramp). Widen the existing southbound entrance ramp to three lanes departing Railroad Canyon Road, tapering to one acceleration lane approximately 1,000 ft in length before entering the freeway. Reconstruct the existing southbound exit ramp and construction of a deceleration lane approximately 1,000 ft in length. Right-of-Way Acquisition New permanent right-of-way would be required for the planned improvements under Alternative 2. The planned improvements under this alternative would require the partial acquisition of 57 parcels (39 residentially zoned parcels and 18 commercially zoned parcels), totaling 798,787 sf. Of these 57 partial acquisitions, 7 parcels are located within the Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase 1) and 50 parcels are located within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 2 would also require the full acquisition of 12 residentially zoned parcels totaling 184,276 sf. All 12 parcels that would be fully acquired are located within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 2 would displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. In general, the partial acquisitions consist of several feet of frontage area along major arterials. Mandatory Design Exceptions There are no unique mandatory design exceptions identified for Alternative 2. Advisory Design Exceptions There are no unique advisory design exceptions identified for Alternative 2. ALTERNATIVE 3 – NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE As illustrated in Figure 1.3, under Alternative 3, the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would be reconstructed to provide hook ramps for northbound traffic to enter and exit the freeway on Grape Street and hook ramps for southbound traffic to enter and exit the freeway on Casino Drive, and additional through lanes on Railroad Canyon Road, as well as on the freeway ramps in conjunction with a new full movement interchange at Franklin Street. Typical cross sections and profiles for this alternative are illustrated in Appendix H. Alternative 3 proposes the following unique features: Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area Widen Railroad Canyon Road under the freeway to six travel lanes (three lanes in each direction). Eliminate the existing southbound entrance ramp and the southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. Construct new southbound hook ramps connecting to Casino Drive and with a southbound acceleration lane approximately 1,000 ft in length at Casino Drive entrance ramps and a deceleration lane approximately 1,300 ft in length at the Casino Drive exit ramp. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-40 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 3SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-3_ConceptImprov3.mxd (10/4/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.3 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Detention Basin Proposed RO W, Alternative 3 Proposed RO W, Alternatives 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 3 Contour Grading Alt 3 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 3 Pavement Edges Alt 3 Proposed Alignment Proposed TCE Index M ap Sheet 1 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-42 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 3SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-3_ConceptImprov3.mxd (10/4/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.3 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Detention Basin Proposed RO W, Alternative 3 Proposed RO W, Alternatives 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 3 Contour Grading Alt 3 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 3 Pavement Edges Alt 3 Proposed Alignment Proposed TCE Index M ap Sheet 2 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-44 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 3SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-3_ConceptImprov3.mxd (10/4/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.3 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Detention Basin Proposed RO W, Alternative 3 Proposed RO W, Alternatives 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 3 Contour Grading Alt 3 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 3 Pavement Edges Alt 3 Proposed Alignment Proposed TCE Index M ap Sheet 3 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-46 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 3SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-3_ConceptImprov3.mxd (10/4/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.3 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Detention Basin Proposed RO W, Alternative 3 Proposed RO W, Alternatives 2 & 3 Retaining Walls Alt 3 Contour Grading Alt 3 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 3 Pavement Edges Alt 3 Proposed Alignment Proposed TCE Index M ap Sheet 4 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-48 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-49 Right-of-Way Acquisition New permanent right-of-way would be required for the proposed improvements under Alternative 3. The proposed improvements under this alternative would require the partial acquisition of 66 parcels (39 residentially zoned parcels and 27 commercially zoned parcels), totaling 873,232 sf. Of these 66 partial acquisitions, 16 parcels are located within the Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase 1) and 50 parcels are located within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 3 would also require the full acquisition of 13 parcels (12 residentially zoned parcels and 1 commercially zoned parcel) totaling 187,891 sf. There would be one full parcel acquisition within the Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase 1) and 12 parcels that would be fully acquired within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 3 would also displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the proposed I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. Alternative 3 would also result in two business displacements (a Pizza Hut and a Sizzler restaurant) that would require relocation. In general, the partial acquisitions consist of several feet of frontage area along major arterials. Mandatory Design Exceptions There are no unique mandatory design exceptions identified for Alternative 3. Advisory Design Exceptions There is a unique advisory design exception identified for Alternative 3 as it relates to Advisory Design Exception Feature No. 2. On new construction, two curb ramps should be installed at each corner as shown on the Standard Plans. The following intersections—Location 3 (Casino Drive Southbound Ramps – Alternative 3 only) and Location 5 (Casino Drive Southbound Ramps – Alternative 3 only)—have single curb cut access ramps only. ALTERNATIVE 4 – ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE As illustrated in Figure 1.4, under Alternative 4, the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would be reconstructed to provide yield control intersections (roundabouts) and reconstruct/ widen the southbound and northbound ramps with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Typical cross sections and profiles for this alternative are illustrated in Appendix H. Alternative 4 proposes the following unique features: Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area Construct yield control intersections (roundabouts) at the five signalized intersections (Mission Trail/Lake Shore Drive, Casino Drive/Auto Center Drive, I-15 southbound ramps, I-15 northbound ramps, and Grape Street/Summerhill Drive) along Railroad Canyon Road. Construct an acceleration lane approximately 1,000 ft in length at the southbound entrance ramps and a deceleration lane approximately 1,300 ft in length at the northbound exit ramps. Right-of-Way Acquisition New permanent right-of-way would be required for the proposed improvements under Alternative 4. The proposed improvements under this alternative would require the partial acquisition of 64 parcels (one residentially zoned parcel, 12 commercially zoned parcels, 43 vacant parcels, 7 roadways parcels, and one landscaped area), totaling 815,431 sf. Of these 64 partial acquisitions, 13 parcels are located within the Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase 1) and 51 parcels are located within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 4 would also require the full acquisition of 13 parcels (1 residentially zoned parcel, 11 vacant parcels, and one Caltrans parcel) totaling 174,199 sf. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-50 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 4SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-4_ConceptImprov4.mxd (4/28/2017) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.4 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Alt 4 Proposed ROW Alt 4 Proposed Retaining Walls Alt 4 Alignment Alt 4 Pavement Edges Alt 4 Contour Grading Alt 4 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 4 TCE Index M ap Sheet 1 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-52 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 4SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-4_ConceptImprov4.mxd (4/28/2017) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.4 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Alt 4 Proposed ROW Alt 4 Proposed Retaining Walls Alt 4 Alignment Alt 4 Pavement Edges Alt 4 Contour Grading Alt 4 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 4 TCE Index M ap Sheet 2 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-54 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 4SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-4_ConceptImprov4.mxd (4/28/2017) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.4 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Alt 4 Proposed ROW Alt 4 Proposed Retaining Walls Alt 4 Alignment Alt 4 Pavement Edges Alt 4 Contour Grading Alt 4 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 4 TCE Index M ap Sheet 3 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-56 This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Improvements, Alternative 4SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 & 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig1-4_ConceptImprov4.mxd (4/28/2017) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 1.4 0 200 400 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 4 1 2 3 Project Footprint Staging A rea Alt 4 Proposed ROW Alt 4 Proposed Retaining Walls Alt 4 Alignment Alt 4 Pavement Edges Alt 4 Contour Grading Alt 4 Cut and Fill (Grading Limits) Alt 4 TCE Index M ap Sheet 4 of 4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-58 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-59 There would be four full parcel acquisitions within the Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase 1) and 9 parcels that would be fully acquired within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 4 would also displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the proposed I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. No business displacements would occur under Alternative 4. Mandatory Design Exceptions There are three mandatory design exceptions identified for Alternative 4 as it relates to Mandatory Design Exception Feature Nos. 3, 4, and 5. For Design Exception Feature No. 3 (Distance Between Ramp Intersection and Local Road), the distance between the ramp intersection and local roads is an existing non-standard condition. The proposed distance between the southbound ramp intersection and Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive is 287 ft and the proposed distance between the northbound ramp intersection and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive is 100 ft. For Design Exception Feature No. 4 (Standards for Superelevation), the northbound exit ramp, southbound entrance ramp, and southbound exit ramp propose a standard superelevation rate of 8 percent, below the standard superelevation rate set for the curve radii. For Design Exception Feature No. 5 (Shared [pedestrian and bicycles] Facility Widths), a width of 0.0 ft is proposed between the Railroad Canyon Road northbound entrance ramp and Summerhill Drive, and the northeast corner of the Railroad Canyon Road/Summerhill Drive intersection, below the standard width of 2.0 ft. Advisory Design Exceptions There are six advisory design exceptions identified for Alternative 4 as it relates to Advisory Design Exception Feature Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. For Design Exception Feature No. 5 (Standard for Grade), the existing Railroad Canyon Road was constructed with a centerline profile of -0.17 percent to -0.20 percent from east of the Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive intersection to east of the Grape Street-Summerhill Drive intersection and a 2 percent crown. This grade is below the standard 0.3 percent grade. Maintaining the existing grade on Railroad Canyon Road would not result in flooding impacts. For Design Exception Feature No. 6 (Superelevation Transition), the roundabout design provides PRC to slow vehicles as they approach the roundabout. The PRC does not allow for standard superelevation transition lengths and runoff (1/3 and 2/3). In order to reduce vehicle speed exiting the freeway, a series of reversing curves are used to accomplish the speed reduction after the gore area. For Design Exception Feature No. 7 (Compound Curves), the roundabout design provides PRC to slow vehicles as they approach the roundabout. In addition, the roundabout design further reduces the speed with an introduction of a PCC prior to entering the design limit of the roundabout. The PCC does not allow for standard superelevation transition lengths and runoff (1/3 and 2/3). It is proposed to provide a 6 percent per 100 ft maximum superelevation transition rate. For Design Exception Feature No. 8 (Standard Designs), the existing northbound entrance ramp is a short ramp that merges with the freeway prior to the San Jacinto River Bridge with a 2,400 ft radius, curving right. This nonstandard distance is proposed to be retained as is. For Design Exception Feature No. 9 (Standards for Grades), the existing grade along Railroad Canyon Road is 0.17 percent to 0.20 percent, below the standard of 0.30 percent minimum. It is Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-60 proposed to hold the existing grade to avoid major reconstruction as no flooding impacts would occur. For Design Exception Feature No. 10 (Lane Drop), the existing northbound entrance ramp is a short ramp that merges with the freeway prior to the San Jacinto River Bridge. In order to provide two general purpose lanes and one HOV preferential lane without impacting the San Jacinto River Bridge, it is proposed to provide a 16:1 lane drop and the entrance ramp will merge into an existing acceleration/auxiliary lane. 1.5.1.5 Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives Although Transportation System Management measures alone could not satisfy the purpose and need of the project, the following Transportation System Management measures have been incorporated into the Build Alternatives for this project: Additional intersection turning lanes Roundabouts Acceleration/deceleration lanes in the project area on I-15 Ramp metering The project is being designed to provide for improved access to I-15 and to improve the project segment of Railroad Canyon Road, and is consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element. Existing facilities that assist in TSM and TDM alternatives within the City of Lake Elsinore include public transportation services by RTA. RTA provides alternate forms of public transportation, which help reduce the number of motor vehicles within the City of Lake Elsinore. In addition, regional ridesharing opportunities are promoted by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). NO BUILD (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 1) The No Build Alternative would not include improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange or construct the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. Except for normal maintenance, there are no committed improvements included in the No Build Alternative, although the City of Lake Elsinore would be able to make needed local street improvements, consistent with its General Plan. In addition, under the No Build Alternative, LOS would continue to deteriorate at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and surrounding area. This alternative is not consistent with the mobility goals of the Regional Congestion Management Plan and would not meet the project’s purpose and need. 1.5.2 Comparison of Alternatives A comparison among Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative), Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 is provided in Table 1.Q. Because the interchange is within a developed area, it is preferred that the Build Alternatives minimize right-of-way acquisition and displacements to reduce costs and severity of impacts, and maintain local circulation and performance, while meeting the purpose and need for the project. After comparing and weighing the benefits and impacts of the feasible alternatives, which are summarized in Table 1.Q, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative at a PDT meeting on April 19, 2017. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-61Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4Community Impacts/Displacement/ Relocations No change to existing condition of site. No property acquisitions and relocations would occur. Construction of Alternative 2 would require the partial acquisition of 57 parcels (39 residentially zoned parcels and 18 commercially zoned parcels), and would also require the full acquisition of 12 residentially zoned parcels. Of these 57 parcels, 7 parcels are located within the Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase 1) and 50 parcels are located within the Franklin Street interchange area (Phase 2). Alternative 2 would displace one single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the planned I-15/ Franklin Street interchange in the City. A total of 3–4 residents would be displaced as a result of the acquisition of this residential unit. No business displacements would occur under Alternative 2. Construction of Alternative 3 would require the partial acquisition of 66 parcels (39 residentially zoned parcels and 27 commercially zoned parcels) and would also require the full acquisition of 13 parcels (12 residentially zoned parcels and 1 commercially zoned parcel). Of these 66 parcels, 16 parcels are located within Railroad Canyon Road interchange area (Phase1) Alternative 3 would also displace one single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. A total of 3–4 residents would be displaced as a result of the acquisition of this residential unit. Alternative 3 would also result in two business displacements (a Pizza Hut and a Sizzler) that would require relocation. TCEs would not require the relocation of residents, businesses, or employees and TCE parcel owners would be compensated for temporary use of their property during construction. Construction of Alternative 4 would require the partial acquisition of 64 parcels (one residentially zoned parcel, 12 commercially zoned parcels, 43 vacant parcels, 7 roadways parcels, and one landscaped area) and would also require the full acquisition of 13 parcels (1 residentially zoned parcel, 11 vacant parcels, and one Caltrans parcel) totaling 174,199 sf. Of these 64 parcels, 13 parcels are located within the Railroad Canyon Road Interchange area (Phase 1). Alternative 4 would also displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the planned I-15/ Franklin Street interchange in the City. No business displacements would occur under Alternative 4. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-62 Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The No Build Alternative would not involve any construction activities; therefore, no temporary impacts would occur. The No Build Alternative would not provide any improvements at the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange or on Railroad Canyon Road. No construction at the new Franklin Street overpass would occur, nor would there be any improvements to Franklin Street. Therefore, traffic operations at these interchanges, and on Railroad Canyon Road and the project segment of I-15, would continue as they currently exist and would worsen over time. The No Build Alternative will not provide adequate LOS and operational conditions at the study area intersections. The No Build Alternative would not involve any construction; therefore, any proposed bicycle lanes would not be provided unless they are completed as part of a separate local project. ConstructionTraffic delays are expected during project construction for the ramp widening and reconstruction, modifications to local intersections, and the construction of a new interchange. No extended ramp closures are anticipated. Construction of Alternative 2 would temporarily affect traffic on Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, the I-15 mainline, and the I-15 ramps associated with each of the interchanges. Freeway operations may be affected during construction of the ramps, the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange and associated improvements. Limiting construction to off-peak hours would minimize impacts to operation of the I-15 mainline and/or ramps during ongoing construction, if necessary. Temporary nighttime closures of mainline lanes, the on-ramps and off-ramps in either direction, and Railroad Canyon Road may be required during construction. Sidewalk closures on Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street and roadwork during construction would affect pedestrian and bicycle access. Staged construction plans would include provisions for maintaining access to existing driveways, pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. Construction Traffic delays are expected during project construction for the ramp widening and reconstruction, modifications to local intersections, and the construction of a new interchange. No extended ramp closures are anticipated. Construction of Alternative 3 would temporarily affect traffic on Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, the I-15 mainline, and the I-15 ramps. Freeway operations may be affected during construction of the ramps, construction of the planned I-15/ Franklin Street interchange, and associated project improvements. Limiting construction to off-peak hours would minimize impacts to operation of the I-15 mainline and/or ramps during ongoing construction, if necessary. Temporary nighttime closures of mainline lanes, the on-ramps and off-ramps in either direction, and Railroad Canyon Road may be required during construction. Sidewalk closures on Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street and roadwork during construction would affect pedestrian and bicycle access. Staged construction plans would include provisions for maintaining access to existing driveways, pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. ConstructionTraffic delays are expected during project construction for the ramp widening and reconstruction, modifications to local intersections, and the construction of a new interchange. Construction of Alternative 4 may require full ramp closure for up to two weeks. Construction of Alternative 4 would temporarily affect traffic on Railroad Canyon Road, Summerhill Drive, Grape Street, Auto Center Drive, Casino Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Mission Trail, Franklin Street, the I-15 mainline, and the I-15 ramps. Freeway operations may be affected during construction of the ramps, construction of the planned I-15/ Franklin Street interchange, and associated project improvements. Limiting construction to off-peak hours would minimize impacts to operation of the I-15 mainline and/or ramps during ongoing construction, if necessary. Temporary nighttime closures of mainline lanes, the on-ramps and off-ramps in either direction, and full ramp closures of up to 2 weeks may be required during construction. Sidewalk closures on Railroad Canyon Road, Summerhill Drive, Grape Street, Auto Center Drive, Casino Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Mission Trail, and Franklin Street Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-63Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4LOSDuring the 2019 Opening Year a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the southbound segments between Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. During the Design Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. All freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the 2019 Opening Year a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit, the Main Street southbound entrance ramp, the northbound Railroad Canyon Road entrance ramp, and the Main Street northbound exit ramp. All freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the Future Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and the southbound Bundy Canyon Road exit ramp (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour). These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as the freeway ramps are also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the LOSDuring the 2019 Opening Year a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the southbound segments between Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. During the Design Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. All freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the 2019 Opening Year a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit, the Main Street southbound entrance ramp, the northbound Railroad Canyon Road entrance ramp, and the Main Street northbound exit ramp. All freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the Future Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the southbound Railroad Canyon Road-Casino Drive exit ramp (LOS E during p.m. peak hour) and the southbound Bundy Canyon Road exit ramp (LOS F and roadwork during construction would affect pedestrian and bicycle access. Staged construction plans would include provisions for maintaining access to existing driveways, pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. LOS During the 2019 Opening Year a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the southbound segments between Main Street and Rail Road Canyon Road, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. During the Design Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. All freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the 2019 Opening Year a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit, the Main Street southbound entrance ramp, the northbound Railroad Canyon Road entrance ramp, and the Main Street northbound exit ramp. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-64 Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4No Build Alternative. All freeway merge-weaves are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the Future Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of one southbound freeway segment, between new Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road, which is forecast to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as this freeways segment is also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the No Build Alternative. The intersections of Railroad Canyon Road improve to LOS D or better during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Intersections that are outside of the Phase I Railroad Canyon Road area improvements would be operating at unsatisfactory LOS during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with or without Phase 1 improvements. All study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in Future Year 2040, with the exception of the Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. during the p.m. peak hour). These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as the freeway ramps are also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the No Build Alternative. All freeway merge-weaves are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the Future Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of one southbound segment, between new Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road, which is forecast to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as this freeways segment is also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the No Build Alternative. The intersections of Railroad Canyon Road improve to LOS D or better during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Intersections that are outside of the Phase I Railroad Canyon Road area improvements would be operating at unsatisfactory LOS during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with or without Phase 1 improvements. All study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in Future Year 2040, with the exception of the Railroad All freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the Future Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and the southbound Bundy Canyon Road exit ramp (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour). These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as the freeway ramps are also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the No Build Alternative. All freeway merge-weaves are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the Future Year 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of one southbound segment, between new Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road, which is forecast to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as this freeways segment is also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the No Build Alternative. The intersections of Railroad Canyon Road improve to LOS B or better during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Intersections that are outside of the Phase I Railroad Canyon Road area improvements would be operating at unsatisfactory LOS during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with or without Phase 1 improvements. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-65Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4 Queuing No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at entrance ramps as the total ramp demand does not exceed the total ramp meter rate. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at exit ramps as the peak hour queue does not exceed the available ramp length. No queuing would occur during the Future Year 2040 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at entrance ramps as the total ramp demand does not exceed the total ramp meter rate. No queuing would occur during the Future Year 2040 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at exit ramps as the peak hour queue does not exceed the available ramp length. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Within the project limits, existing nonstandard curb ramps would be upgraded to conform to ADA requirements. New curb ramps would meet ADA requirements. In addition, all planned new sidewalks would meet the requirements to provide ADA access. These features would improve pedestrian Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Queuing No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at entrance ramps as the total ramp demand does not exceed the total ramp meter rate. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at exit ramps as the peak hour queue does not exceed the available ramp length. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at entrance ramps as the total ramp demand does not exceed the total ramp meter rate. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at exit ramps as the peak hour queue does not exceed the available ramp length. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Within the project limits, existing nonstandard curb ramps would be upgraded to conform to ADA requirements. New curb ramps would meet ADA requirements. In addition, any new sidewalks that are planned would be designed per ADA standards and requirements. These features All study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in Future Year 2040. Queuing No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at entrance ramps as the total ramp demand does not exceed the total ramp meter rate. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at exit ramps as the peak hour queue does not exceed the available ramp length. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at entrance ramps as the total ramp demand does not exceed the total ramp meter rate. No queuing would occur during the Opening Year 2019 a.m. or p.m. peak hours at exit ramps as the peak hour queue does not exceed the available ramp length. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Within the project limits, existing nonstandard curb ramps would be upgraded to conform to ADA requirements. New curb ramps would meet ADA requirements. In addition, any new sidewalks that are planned would be designed per ADA standards and requirements. These features Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-66 Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4access at both interchanges. Railroad Canyon Road is identified as a Class II bicycle facility. Planned new bicycle facility features that are incorporated into the project design would be consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and would improve bicycle access in the interchange areas. would improve pedestrian access at both interchanges. Railroad Canyon Road is identified as a Class II bicycle facility. Planned new bicycle facility features that are incorporated into the project design would be consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and would improve bicycle access in the interchange areas. would improve pedestrian access at both interchanges. Railroad Canyon Road is identified as a Class II bicycle facility. Planned new bicycle facility features that are incorporated into the project design would be consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and would improve bicycle access in the interchange areas. Visual and Aesthetics The No Build Alternative does not include any changes to the physical environment; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to visual resources would occur. Visual impacts associated with Alternative 2 would result from construction activities, including the presence of equipment, materials, and workers at the freeway interchange and staging areas, and along the streets and roads leading to the interchange. Visual impacts due to construction activities would also result from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation within the project area. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in adverse visual impacts with implementation of Minimization Measures. Visual impacts associated with Alternative 3 would result from construction activities, including the presence of equipment, materials, and workers at the freeway interchange and staging areas, and along the streets and roads leading to the interchange. Visual impacts due to construction activities would also result from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation within the project area. The primary difference in temporary impacts under Alternative 3 is the demolition and construction activity that would occur at the Casino Drive ramps. Construction and demolition activities would not occur at the Casino Drive ramps under Alternative 2. Implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in adverse visual impacts with implementation of Minimization Measures. As described under Alternative 2, visual impacts would result from construction activities, including the presence of equipment, materials, and workers at the freeway interchange and staging areas, and along the streets and roads leading to the interchange. Visual impacts due to construction activities would also result from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation within the project area. The primary difference in temporary impacts under Alternative 4 is the construction activity and temporary closures that would occur at the intersections at Railroad Canyon Road with Lakeshore Drive, Casino Drive, and Summerhill Road, as well as I-15 on- and off-ramps. Construction activities would not occur at these intersections under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in adverse visual impacts with implementation of Minimization Measures. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-67Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff The No Build Alternative would not result in change in impervious surface area or require temporary soil disturbance, a change in pollutant loading, volume of storm water runoff, a requirement for the addition of Treatment BMPs, or result in potential improvement to water quality. During construction, the total disturbed area from Alternative 2 would be approximately 41.1 acres. The existing surface area within the project area is 36.3 acres. Alternative 2 would create approximately 18.8 acres of new impervious surface, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces within the project area to 55.1 acres. Runoff from the proposed project would be expected to contain higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. During construction, the total disturbed area from Alternative 3 would be approximately 42.0 acres. The existing impervious surface area within the project area is 36.3 acres. Alternative 3 would create approximately 20.7 acres of new impervious surface, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces within the project area to 57.0 acres. Stormwater runoff in the area would be expected to contain higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. During construction, the total disturbed area from Alternative 4 would be approximately 41.0 acres. Cut-and-fill impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. The existing impervious surface area within the project area is 36.3 acres. Alternative 4 would create approximately 18.2 acres of new impervious surface, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces within the project area to 54.5 acres. Stormwater runoff in the area would be expected to contain higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. Noise Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no construction and no temporary project-related noise generated. Six receptors would or would continue to approach or exceed the NAC under the No Build Alternative future year conditions. The worst-case composite noise level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from an active construction area. Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 9 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Of the modeled receptors, one of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C. Interior noise levels at a church, school, and two medical facilities under Alternative 2 traffic conditions would not approach or The worst-case composite noise level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from an active construction area. Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 10 receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category B, which has an exterior NAC of 67 dBA Leq for residential uses. Of the modeled receptors, none of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C, which has an exterior NAC of 72 dBA Leq. The worst-case composite noise level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from an active construction area. Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 8 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Of the modeled receptors, one of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C. Interior noise levels at a church, school, and two medical facilities under Alternative 4 traffic Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-68 Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4exceed 52 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, no noise abatement measures for these buildings are required. Of the seven modeled noise barriers evaluated for Alternative 2, four noise barriers were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more, as required to be considered feasible. Noise Barrier Nos. 2-1, 2-2B, and 2-5 were determined to not be feasible because the barrier would not reduce noise levels by 5 dBA or more. None of the feasible noise barriers under Alternative 2 were determined to be reasonable because the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeded the total reasonable allowance. Interior noise levels at all four hotels under Alternative 3 traffic conditions would not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, no noise abatement measures for the hotel rooms are required. Of the four modeled noise barriers evaluated under Alternative 3, three noise barriers were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more, as required to be considered feasible. None of the feasible noise barriers under Alternative 3 were determined to be reasonable because the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeded the total reasonable allowance. conditions would not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, no noise abatement measures for these buildings are required. Of the six modeled noise barriers evaluated for Alternative 4, four noise barriers were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more, as required to be considered feasible. Noise Barrier Nos. 4-2B, and 4-5 were determined to not be feasible because the barrier would not reduce noise levels by 5 dBA or more. None of the feasible noise barriers under Alternative 4 were determined to be reasonable because the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeded the total reasonable allowance. Hazardous Waste/Materials Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no change to the existing site conditions. Therefore, no potentially hazardous waste/materials would be generated or encountered during acquisition of needed additional property or construction as a result of the project. Alternative 2 would involve disturbance of existing soils and structures; therefore, hazardous soil contaminants (LBP and ADL) and structural materials (PCBs, LBP, and ACM) may be encountered during project construction. Typical hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., solvents, paints, and fuels) would be handled in accordance with standard procedures. There are standard regulations and Caltrans policies (avoidance and minimization measures) that must be followed with respect to the use, Alternative 3 would also involve disturbance of existing soils and structures; therefore, hazardous soil contaminants (ADL and LBP) and structural materials (PCBs, LBP, and ACM) may be encountered during project construction. Typical hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., solvents, paints, and fuels) would be handled in accordance with standard procedures. There are standard regulations and Caltrans policies (avoidance and minimization measures) that must Alternative 4 would also involve disturbance of existing soils and structures; therefore, hazardous soil contaminants (ADL and LBP) and structural materials (PCBs, LBP, and ACM) may be encountered during project construction. Typical hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., solvents, paints, and fuels) would be handled in accordance with standard procedures. There are standard regulations and Caltrans policies (avoidance and minimization measures) that must Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-69Table 1.Q: Comparison of Alternatives Issue Alternative 1 (No Build)Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3Alternative 4storage, handling, disposal, and transport of potentially hazardous materials during implementation of Alternative 2 to protect human health and the environment. Routine maintenance activities during operation of the proposed project would be required to follow applicable regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in adverse impacts related to hazardous waste or materials. be followed with respect to the use, storage, handling, disposal, and transport of potentially hazardous materials during construction of Alternative 3 to protect human health and the environment. Routine maintenance activities during operation of the proposed project follow applicable regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in adverse impacts related to hazardous waste or materials. be followed with respect to the use, storage, handling, disposal, and transport of potentially hazardous materials during construction of Alternative 4 to protect human health and the environment. Routine maintenance activities during operation of the proposed project follow applicable regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in adverse impacts related to hazardous waste or materials. Cost There would be no construction and no final design and construction costs. The estimated cost to construct Alternative 2 is $97.35 million. The estimated cost to construct Alternative 3 is $110.4 million. The estimated cost to construct Alternative 4 is $95.65 million. ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act Caltrans = California Department of Transportation City = City of Lake Elsinore ft = foot/feet I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service sf = square feet TCE = temporary construction easements Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-70 1.5.2.1 General Design Differences Alternative 2 consists of the reconstruction of the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, elimination of the existing northbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, maintaining a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, construction of a new interchange at Franklin Street, and realignment of the Main Street southbound entrance ramp. Similarly, Alternative 3 consists of the reconstruction of the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, elimination of the existing northbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, construction of a new interchange at Franklin Street, and realignment of the Main Street southbound entrance ramp. However, instead of maintaining the diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, Alternative 3 proposes to reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive and eliminate the existing southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road. Alternative 4 proposes to reconstruct five consecutive signal-controlled intersections into yield-controlled intersections roundabouts, including at the existing northbound and southbound ramps. The existing diamond configuration at the Railroad Canyon Road interchange will be reconstructed and slightly realigned to accommodate the roundabout design. For Alternative 2, the northbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road includes a 1,300 ft deceleration lane which opens up to two lanes and eventually three lanes at its intersection with Railroad Canyon Road, west of Grape Street. The northbound entrance ramp west of Grape Street is a three lane entry ramp comprised of an HOV bypass lane and two metered lanes and tapers down to one lane into the auxiliary lane to merge with I-15 mainline. The southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road will be modified to a two lane exit ramp which opens up to three lanes at its intersection with Railroad Canyon Road. The southbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road will be widened to a three lane entry ramp comprised of one HOV bypass lane and two metered lanes and tapers down to one lane into the auxiliary lane to merge with I-15 mainline. The entrance ramps will provide for a 1,000 ft acceleration lane. Alternative 2 includes the widening of Railroad Canyon Road under the freeway to eight travel lanes (three lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes to the southbound entrance ramp), the widening of the existing southbound entrance ramp to three lanes departing Railroad Canyon Road and tapering to one acceleration lane before entering the freeway, and widening of the existing southbound exit ramp to two lanes exiting the freeway, widening to four lanes approaching Railroad Canyon Road. Alternative 3 includes the widening of Railroad Canyon Road under the freeway to six travel lanes (three lanes in each direction), elimination of the existing southbound entrance and exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, and construction of new hook ramps connecting to Casino Drive with a southbound acceleration lane. Alternative 4 proposes to reconstruct five consecutive signal-controlled intersections into yield-controlled roundabouts generally following the existing alignment of Railroad Canyon Road. Widening of the existing Railroad Canyon Road would occur under Alternative 4; however, this alternative would retain 4 travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout the alignment crossing underneath I-15. 1.6 Identification of the Preferred Alternative The Draft IS/EA prepared and approved for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project, was circulated for public review and comment between January 12 and February 13, 2017. In addition to meeting the project’s purpose and need, the identification of the Preferred Alternative was based upon the following factors: Community impacts, including right-of-way acquisition and displacements Operational performance Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-71 Severity of impacts Project cost With respect to the project’s potential community impacts, Alternative 2 has the least amount of property acquisitions and would result in no additional residential displacements compared to Alternatives 3 and 4 and fewer business displacements than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in displacement of 1 residence and no businesses, and anticipated to potentially require full acquisition of 12 parcels. Alternative 3 would be anticipated to require displacement of 1 residence and 2 businesses, and would be anticipated to potentially require full acquisition of 13 parcels. Alternative 4 would be anticipated to displace 1 residence and no businesses, and would potentially require full acquisition of 13 parcels. As identified in the Draft IS/EA, minimizing right-of-way acquisition and business displacements was one of the specific evaluation criteria for the project. Alternative 2 would improve operation and reduce future congestion at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. All mainline segments and study area intersections would operate at acceptable LOS upon completion of Phase 2. One freeway ramp junction, Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, would operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. When compared to Alternatives 3 and 4, Alternative 2 would provide similar operational performance. As identified in the Draft IS/EA, operational performance was one of the specific evaluation criteria for the project. 1.6.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Discussion Several Build Alternatives have been studied over the past several years. A Value Analysis Study was conducted for the project in the summer of 2006, which included coordination from Caltrans, the City of Lake Elsinore, and consultants. The Value Analysis Study was approved on October 2006 and recommended the following alternatives as summarized in Table 1.R: Table 1.R: Value Analysis Alternatives Considered Alternative Conclusion Single Point (Urban) Interchange The PDT agreed to further investigate this alternative, but was later discarded because of poor LOS operation and not meeting the purpose and need of the project. Tight Diamond Interchange The PDT agreed to discard as not viable due to poor operational LOS. Realign the Northbound Entrance Ramps and Exit Ramps with Summerhill Drive The PDT agreed to discard as not viable due to environmental and right-of-way impacts to existing recently constructed businesses. New Split Diamond Interchange at the existing Franklin Street overcrossing The PDT agreed to discard as not viable due to non-standard design features. New Full Movement Interchange at the existing Franklin Street overcrossing The PDT agreed to further investigate this alternative, but was discarded at FHWA’s request to construct a new interchange approximately 0.2 mile north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing. New Full Movement Interchange at Franklin Street with Braided Ramps to Railroad Canyon Road The PDT agreed to discard as not viable due to environmental and right-of-way impacts to existing recently constructed businesses. New Overcrossing at Malaga Road The PDT agreed to further investigate this alternative, but was later discarded because of poor LOS operation and not meeting the purpose and need of the project. Make Casino Drive a Right In/Right Out Access using a Raised Median The PDT agreed to discard as not viable due to environmental and right-of-way impacts to existing recently constructed businesses. LOS = level of service PDT = Project Development Team Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-72 In the spring and summer of 2008, a Draft Traffic Impact Analysis (June 2008) was prepared that outlined the various scenarios and alternatives that would be further investigated as identified in Table 1.R. The Draft Traffic Impact Analysis investigated the following four scenarios: Scenario A: This scenario assumes that there will be improvements only at the I-15/ Railroad Canyon Road interchange. Scenario B: This scenario assumes that there will be improvements at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, and a new interchange will be constructed at the existing Franklin Street at I-15 overcrossing. Scenario C: This scenario assumes that there will be improvements at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, and a new overcrossing will be constructed at Malaga Road at I-15. Scenario D: This scenario assumes that there will be improvements at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, a new interchange will be constructed at the existing Franklin Street at I-15, and a new overcrossing will be constructed at Malaga Road at 1-15. A summary of the previous alternatives that were associated with each of the above scenarios is included in Table 1.S. Table 1.S: Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Alternative Alternative Description Alternative 2A Reconstruct the existing diamond configuration. Alternative 2B Reconstruct the existing diamond configuration with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Alternative 2C Reconstruct the existing diamond configuration with a new overcrossing at Malaga Road. Alternative 2D Reconstruct the existing diamond configuration with a new interchange at Franklin Street and a new overcrossing at Malaga Drive. Alternative 3A Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road. Alternative 3B Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Alternative 3C Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a new overcrossing at Malaga Road. Alternative 3D Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, and maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street and a new overcrossing at Malaga Drive. Alternative 4A Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. Alternative 4B Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-73 Table 1.S: Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Alternative Alternative Description Alternative 4C Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new overcrossing at Malaga Road. Alternative 4D Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street and a new overcrossing at Malaga Drive. Alternative 5A Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound loop exit ramp to Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound entrance ramp from Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. Alternative 5B Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound loop exit ramp to Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound entrance ramp from Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Alternative 5C Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound loop exit ramp to Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound entrance ramp from Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new overcrossing at Malaga Road. Alternative 5D Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, widen the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound loop exit ramp to Railroad Canyon Road, construct a new southbound entrance ramp from Casino Drive, and widen the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road with a new interchange at Franklin Street and a new overcrossing at Malaga Drive. Alternative 6A Reconstruct the existing configuration to a single point interchange. Alternative 6B Reconstruct the existing configuration to a single point interchange with a new interchange at Franklin Street. Alternative 6C Reconstruct the existing configuration to a single point interchange with a new overcrossing at Malaga Road. Alternative 6D Reconstruct the existing configuration to a single point interchange with a new interchange at Franklin Street and a new overcrossing at Malaga Drive. An Alternative Reduction Workshop was held on September 23–24, 2008, with representatives from Caltrans Design, Traffic Operations, Planning, Environmental and the City of Lake Elsinore. At the Alternative Reduction Workshop, all alternatives for Scenarios A, C, and D were discarded. In addition, Alternatives 2 and 6 were discarded. Alternatives 3B, 4B, and 5B were modified, as recommended by the Alternative Reduction Workshop team, and as described below: New Alternative 2 (Previous Alternative 3B): Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, eliminate the existing northbound exit/entrance ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, maintain a diamond configuration for the southbound ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, and construct a new interchange at Franklin Street. New Alternative 3 (Previous Alternative 4B): Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, eliminate the existing northbound exit/entrance ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Casino Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-74 Drive, eliminate the existing southbound exit/entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, and construct a new interchange at Franklin Street. New Alternative 4 (Previous Alternative 5B): Reconstruct the northbound ramps to a hook configuration to Grape Street, eliminate the existing northbound exit/entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, reconstruct the southbound ramps to a hook configuration to Auto Center Drive, eliminate the existing southbound exit/entrance ramps at Railroad Canyon Road, and construct a new interchange at Franklin Street. In October 2008, the FHWA recommended the following items be incorporated into the project: Move the new Franklin Street overcrossing/interchange approximately 0.22 mile north of its current location, which would provide 1.0-mile interchange spacing between Railroad Canyon Road and the new Franklin Street and 0.9 mile between Main Street and Franklin Street. Eliminate the existing northbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road for Alternatives 2 and 3. Eliminate the existing southbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road for Alternative 3. All of the FHWA recommendations were incorporated into Alternatives 2 and 3. In the spring of 2009, the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis was revised to address the four alternatives; and the PDT, in agreement with the City of Lake Elsinore, agreed to discard New Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was discarded for the following reasons: Environmental impacts to the San Jacinto River. Non-standard interchange spacing between Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street and Franklin Street to Main Street. Non-standard merge-diverge distance between the southbound Main Street entrance ramp and the new Franklin Street southbound exit ramp. Right-of-way impacts to existing business. 1.7 Stage Construction Conceptual Stage Construction plans will be prepared and included in the project PS&E. Preliminary Staging Concept plans have been prepared for Alternative 2 and reviewed by the City of Lake Elsinore. There are no long-term detours anticipated for the project. Temporary nighttime full ramp or Railroad Canyon Road closures to erect/remove bridge falsework or place K-rail barriers will be required for Alternative 2. Full ramp closures will be planned for 10 consecutive calendar days or less for Alternative 2. In addition to contract items for traffic control, the Engineer’s estimate will include supplemental funds for “Maintaining Traffic.” All work can be accomplished using the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Temporary Traffic Control,” and supplemented by Caltrans Standard Plans (T-Series) and the project PS&E. Because the entire project is being divided into two viable cost-effective phases with logical termini, the stage construction is itemized below for each phase project: Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-75 Alternative 2, Phase 1 Project – Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area Stage 1 Maintain traffic on all existing roadway facilities Construct portions of the new northbound Grape Street ramps and related bridge structure Construct non-conflicting widening and other improvements using standard shoulder closures at the southbound ramps Construct non-conflicting widening and other improvements using standard shoulder closures, including retaining wall, at Railroad Canyon Road Construct traffic signal at the new intersection of Grape Street and the northbound ramps Stage 2 Close the northbound exit ramp at Railroad Canyon Road and detour traffic to Main Street Construct the remaining portions of the new Grape Street ramps Complete the traffic signal at the new intersection of Grape Street and the northbound ramps and activate new signal Close the southbound entrance ramp and detour traffic to Main Street and Bundy Canyon Road and construct the remaining portions of the southbound exit ramp Stage 3 Remove existing northbound entrance ramp Complete traffic signal work and interconnect Alternative 2, Phase 2 Project – New Franklin Street and Main Street Interchange Area Stage 1 Construct the new Franklin Street overcrossing, ramps, and new frontage road system, while maintaining existing traffic on all existing roadway facilities Construct non-conflicting widening and other improvements at the southbound Main Street entrance ramp Stage 2 Close the southbound entrance ramp at Main Street and detour traffic to the new Franklin Street southbound entrance ramp Construct the remaining portions of the southbound Main Street entrance ramp 1.8 Permits and Approvals Needed Table 1.T lists the permits, reviews, and approvals that are or may be required prior to construction of the project. Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 1-76 Table 1.T: Permits and/or Approvals Needed Agency Permit/Approval Status State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Section 402 NPDES (Construction Activity) Application and Notice of Intent will be submitted prior to construction. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Certification or Waiver The City will submit the application to the RWQCB after approval of the Final Environmental Document. The City will coordinate with the RWQCB to obtain water quality certification during final design. The RWQCB will provide comments on the application. Meetings between the City and the RWQCB will be held if necessary during final design. The City will obtain the certification or waiver from the RWQCB during final design and will implement the requirements included in the certification or waiver. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit, Nationwide (NWP) The Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation was submitted to the USACE on July 6, 2017. Caltrans will obtain the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from USACE during the PS&E phase. In addition, prior to obtaining grading permits, the City will submit a Pre-Construction Notification form to the USACE to obtain coverage under NWPs 14 and 33, pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Determination Caltrans submitted a request for an MSHCP Consistency Determination and Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) to USFWS on December 28, 2016, and resubmitted the revised documents on June 30, 2017. USFWS issued a letter concurring that the project was consistent with the MSHCP and DBESP on August 14, 2017. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1602 MSHCP Consistency Determination Application will be submitted after Environmental Document approval. The City will coordinate with CDFW to obtain agreement regarding riparian habitat impacts and mitigation. Caltrans submitted a request for an MSHCP Consistency Determination and Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) to CDFW on December 28, 2016, and resubmitted the revised documents on June 30, 2017. CDFW issued a letter concurring that the project was consistent with the MSHCP and DBESP on August 14, 2017. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Air Quality Conformity Determination The Air Quality Conformity report was submitted to the FHWA on June 28, 2017. The FHWA approved the project-level air quality conformity determination on July 24, 2017. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Construction Encroachment Permit Application for a Caltrans construction encroachment permit will be submitted by the City prior to construction. Caltrans = California Department of Transportation City = City of Lake Elsinore IS/EA = Initial Study/Environmental Assessment NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2-1 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. Coastal Zone: There is no potential for adverse impacts to a coastal zone because the project site is approximately 50 miles inland from the coast. National Marine Fisheries Service: This project is located outside of NMFS jurisdiction, therefore an NMFS species list is not required and no effects to NMFS species are anticipated. Wild and Scenic Rivers: There is no potential for adverse impacts to wild and scenic rivers due to the absence of designated wild and scenic rivers in the vicinity of the project site. Farmlands or Timberlands: There is no potential for adverse impacts to farmlands or timberlands. The project site is in an urban part of the City of Lake Elsinore and no timberlands are present. The following four assessments prepared for the project determined that there are no farmlands in the vicinity of the project site: Final Community Impact Assessment (CIA) (December 2010) Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2012) Second Supplemental Memorandum to the Community Impact Assessment (January 2015) Third Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (February 2015) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2-2 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-1 Human Environment 2.1 Land Use 2.1.1 Existing and Future Land Uses The project area, as previously illustrated in Figure 1.1, is in the City of Lake Elsinore, in Riverside County. The project area is the area studied for temporary and permanent project impacts. Existing land use patterns, development trends, and adopted goals and policies are summarized from the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan (adopted December 13, 2011). Existing land uses in the project area are described below by quadrant. Northwest Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): Land use designations within this quadrant include Medium Density Residential, Public Institutional, General Commercial (including areas which include the Auto Mall Overlay), and Tourist Commercial. This quadrant is located within the Lake Elsinore Hills Land Use District.1 Existing land uses within this quadrant include shopping centers (Shoppers Square Shopping Center and Plaza Del Sol) between the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and Casino Drive and numerous fast-food restaurants, hotels, and office complexes along Casino Drive. Other existing land uses within this quadrant include a Ford car dealership located between I-15 and Auto Center Drive. Numerous multifamily and single-family residences are located north of Mill Street. Northeast Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): Land use designations within this quadrant include General Commercial and Specific Plan Area designations and are within the Riverview Land Use District.2 Current land uses in this quadrant include single-family residences, neighborhood shopping centers (containing gas stations, banks, and other services for the local population), and storage compounds along Canyon Estates Drive and Summerhill Drive. Several small businesses and fast-food restaurants (e.g., In-N- Out and Kentucky Fried Chicken) are also located in this quadrant and are part of the Riverview Land Use District.3 Southwest Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): This quadrant includes General Commercial, Commercial Mixed Use, Public Institutional, and Specific Plan Area land use designations and is within the Lake Elsinore Hill Land Use District.4 Current uses in this quadrant include two neighborhood shopping centers, an animal hospital, several fast- food restaurants, and chain restaurants along Diamond Drive and Casino Drive. Southeast Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): This quadrant includes General Commercial, Low-Medium Residential, Open Space, and Specific Plan Area land use designations and is within the Lake Elsinore Hills Land Use District.5 Existing land uses within this quadrant include townhomes and a regional shopping center (including big-box retail, grocery store, and fast-food restaurants) north of Grape Street. Northwest Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): This quadrant is also within the City of Lake Elsinore and within the Riverview Land Use District. Land use designations within this quadrant include High Density Residential and General Commercial (with the 1 City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Department. 2008. Parks Facilities Map and Parks Amenities Chart. November. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-2 Auto Mall Overlay). There are no current uses within this quadrant. All land within this quadrant is vacant land. Northeast Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): Located within the City of Lake Elsinore, this quadrant is part of the Lake Elsinore Hills Land Use District. Land use designations within this quadrant include Commercial Mixed Use, Open Space, Hillside Residential, Public Institutional, and Business Professional. Existing land use within this quadrant primarily consists of vacant land; however, there is a residential subdivision of single-family homes northwest of Canyon Estates Drive. Southwest Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): This quadrant is part of the Riverview Land Use District. Land use designations within this quadrant include General Commercial (with Auto Mall Overlay), Public Institutional, Residential Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Low-Medium Residential. Existing land uses within this quadrant consist of single-family residences, multiple-family residences, a car dealership, and a school (Railroad Canyon Elementary School). Southeast Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): Located in the City of Lake Elsinore, this quadrant is part of the Lake Elsinore Hills Land Use District and is designated for Business Professional uses. Land use designations within this quadrant include Business Professional, Public Institutional, and Specific Plan Area. Existing land uses within this quadrant consist of single-family residences and self-storage facilities. The City of Lake Elsinore initiated its General Plan Update in 2005 and a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was distributed on or about November 15, 2005. The City held a public scoping meeting On November 20, 2005, soliciting public and agency comments. In December 2007, a draft Program EIR was circulated for public review in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The Final Program EIR was never certified due to the need for substantive revisions to the Draft General Plan Update based on comments received during the public hearing process. In addition to revisions to the Land Use Element, the Land Use Map and the Traffic Impact Study to reflect the land use changes, further revisions to the General Plan Update were necessary to incorporate (1) any updated Housing Element sections not included as part of the original General Plan scope; and (2) provisions of a Downtown Master Plan. It should also be noted that a Climate Action Plan is being prepared as part of the update (refer to Section 2.24, Climate Change, for a discussion of the Climate Action Plan). The combined changes to the General Plan Update, including the addition of a Housing Element update, a Downtown Master Plan, and a Climate Action Plan have triggered the need to update, revise, and where necessary, expand on the analysis of the General Plan Update impacts presented in the 2007 Draft Program EIR. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update (December 13, 2011) Community Form Element identifies the desired or intended use of land in the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) and encompasses a comprehensive strategy for managing the community’s future. The Lake Elsinore General Plan is the community’s statement of what is in its interest and is the City’s most important statement regarding its physical, economic, and cultural development over the next 20 years. The City’s General Plan Update was adopted on December 13, 2011. The City’s total planning area at build out (Year 2030) encompasses approximately 46,564 acres. Of this area, approximately 27,747 acres are currently within the City limits and the remainder is within the City’s SOI. Land use designations are provided to define the type, amount, and nature of development that is allowed at any given location. Developable land uses in the planning area at build out include 21,582 acres of residential uses, 286 acres of mixed residential uses, 1,258 acres of business- related uses, 631 acres of mixed commercial, 698 acres of limited industrial uses, 1,341 acres Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-3 of public/institutional uses, 4,588 total acres of open space and recreation uses, and 12,712 acres of Specific Plan uses. The remaining 667 acres that are not subject to development include flood control facilities and road rights-of-way. General Plan land uses for the City of Lake Elsinore are illustrated in Figure 2.1.1. 2.1.2 Development Trends Currently, much of the City’s existing vacant land and open space areas are governed by adopted Specific Plans and slated for future development. Substantial open space areas and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas are located throughout the City. Based on Table 3.1-2 of the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan EIR, land use designations within the City limits include 9,631 acres of residential uses, 1,501 acres of business-related uses, 354 acres of mixed use, 3,787 acres of public/ quasi-public uses, and 4,325 total acres of open space uses (parks or permanent open spaces). The remaining acreage within the City that is not subject to development includes flood control facilities and road rights-of-way. Table 2.1.A and Figure 2.1.1 provide a summary and illustrate proposed projects within the project vicinity. 2.1.3 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans 2.1.3.1 Regional Plans REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP)/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SCS) The 2016 RTP/SCS was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) on April 7, 2016, and found to conform by the Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration (FHWA/FTA) on June 1, 2016. Amendment No. 1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS was subsequently adopted by SCAG on April 6, 2017, and Amendment No. 2 to the RTP/SCS was adopted by SCAG on July 6, 2017. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS establishes a transportation vision for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties. The RTP/SCS is a comprehensive 24-year transportation plan that represents a vision for a better transportation system integrated with the best possible growth pattern for the region through 2040. The RTP/SCS identifies major challenges as well as potential opportunities associated with growth, transportation finances, the future of airports in the region, and impending transportation system deficiencies that could result from growth projections for the region. The SCS is a required element of the RTP that integrates land use and transportation strategies that will achieve Air Resources Board (ARB) emissions reduction targets. SCAG updates the RTP/SCS every 4 years. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP) The Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is a capital listing of all transportation projects proposed over a 6-year period for the SCAG region. The FTIP is prepared to implement projects and programs listed in the RTP and is developed in compliance with State and federal requirements. The locally prioritized lists of projects are forwarded to SCAG for review. SCAG develops the FTIP based on consistency with the current RTP, inter-county connectivity, financial constraints, and conformity satisfaction. The FTA and the FHWA approved the 2017 FTIP on September 1, 2016. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-4 This page intentionally left blank Cities of Lake Elsinore and W ildomar General Plan Land UsesSOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; City of Lake Elsinore, 2011; City of Wildomar, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-1-1_GP_Land_Use.mxd (10/4/2016) FIGURE 2.1.1 0 1,000 2,000 Feet S!!N 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Project Footprint City Boundaries Lake Elsinore Adopted General Plan F - Floodway BP - Business Professional LI - Lim ited Industrial GC - General Commercial TC - Tourist Commercial GWC - Gateway Commercial CM - Commercial Mixed Use RM - Residential M ixed U se HR - Hillside Residential LM R - Low-M edium Residential MDR - M edium Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential OS - Open Space P/I - Public/Institutional SP - Specific Plan Wildom ar G eneral Plan Land Use CR - Commercial R etail EDR - Estate Residential MHDR - M edium High Density Residential VHDR - Very High Density Residential Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-6 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-7 Table 2.1.A: Summary of Proposed Projects Within Project Vicinity Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status Industrial Design Review No. 2008-01 City of Lake Elsinore Located on Collier Avenue immediately north of Riverside Drive. The project is an industrial business park consisting of five concrete tilt-up buildings ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 18,100 square feet for a total building square footage of 67,100 square feet for the site. Approved at Lake Elsinore City Council Meeting, May 11, 2010. Assessor’s Parcel No. 363- 670-005 31587 Canyon Estates City of Lake Elsinore Two-story 10,000-square foot medical office building and related improvements within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1/SP) zoning district of the Canyon Creek Summerhill Specific Plan. The 0.78-net acre project site is located on the west side of Canyon Estates Drive and north of Summerhill Drive. Approved by City Council on November 5, 2007. Spyglass Ranch City of Lake Elsinore The 259-acre Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan would result in the development of a maximum of 1,035 dwelling units consisting of eight estate dwelling units, 515 single family dwelling units, 222 courtyard homes, and 290 multi-family residential units. The Specific Plan also includes a 6.5-acre park site, 95.9 acres of open space, and 11.1 acres devoted to Major Circulation. The project would be developed in conformance with the previously approved Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. The project site is located on the east side of Camino Del Norte at its intersection with Main Street. On March 17, 2015, three Amendments to the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan related to demolition of the existing Delaney Ranch Complex and deletion of references to the subdivision of the property into six parcels were approved by the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission. Beazer Homes, McMillin Homes, and Richmond American Homes City of Lake Elsinore The project consists of residential dwelling units located west of Mission Trail between Diamond Drive and Corydon Street. Beazer Homes consists of 65 single-family residential units. McMillin Homes consists of 64 single-family residential units. Richmond American Homes consists of 74 single-family residential units. Approved by City Council, Beazer Homes on August 23, 2011, McMillin Homes on July 8, 2015, and Richmond American Homes on March 22, 2011. Pardee Homes City of Lake Elsinore The project consists of 456 detached condos south of Railroad Canyon Road, Approved by City Council on July 21, 2015. Summerly City of Lake Elsinore 142 units located west of Mission Trail between Diamond Drive and Corydon Street. Ongoing, under construction. Lakeshore Town Center1 City of Lake Elsinore Proposed development of 101,230-square- foot hotel, 33,900-square-foot retail, 178,443-square-foot multifamily residential, plus pier on 25 acres of Lake Elsinore's northeastern shore on the west side of Lakeshore Drive south of Spring Street and east of the Main Street-Lakeshore Drive intersection. Preliminary review is under way, to be followed by environmental analysis and Planning Commission review. Southshore II (Tentative Tract Map No. 36567) City of Lake Elsinore The 71.7-acre project site consists of 147 single-family detached residential units, 19.0 acres of natural open space, 3.5 acres of public park, and an on-site detention basin. The project site is located northeast of I-15 at the Main Street interchange. Approved Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-8 Table 2.1.A: Summary of Proposed Projects Within Project Vicinity Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status Crestview at Rosetta Hills City of Lake Elsinore The project includes 65 single-family residential units. Approved and completed. Walmart City of Lake Elsinore The proposed project would develop a commercial retail shopping center that would include a 154,487-square-foot Walmart store, three outer lots for other retail uses, and parking facilities on the southwest corner of Central Avenue (SR- 74) and Cambern Avenue, which is regionally accessed by I-15 and Central Avenue. Environmental review in progress. Fisherman’ s Wharf City of Lake Elsinore The project consists of 12,748 square feet, located on Lakeshore Drive between Riverside Drive and Chaney Street. Pending Tentative Tract Map 33370 City of Lake Elsinore Proposed development of 90 condominium units on approximately 9 acres of Lake Elsinore's Riverview District on the west side of Interstate 15, south of Avenue 6, north of Bancroft Way, and east of Channing Way. Pending Final Tentative Tract Map approval by City Council. Source: City of Lake Elsinore. 1 The Press Enterprise, 2015. Website: http://www.pe.com/articles/city-7711793-lake-project.html (accessed July 23, 2015). I-15 = Interstate 15 SR-74 = State Route 74 2.1.3.2 Local Plans CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN The City of Lake Elsinore recently underwent an update of its General Plan. The General Plan update was approved on December 13, 2011. The I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project is consistent with the General Plan goals for the City of Lake Elsinore regarding relevant land use, circulation/ transportation, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements. The applicable General Plan goals and policies have been included as part of Table 2.1.B. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi- jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the long-term conservation of species and their habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) as well as the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the State of California. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USWFS) issued a Biological Opinion for the MSHCP on June 22, 2004. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) also issued the NCCP Approval and Take Authorization for the MSHCP. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-9Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The 2016 RTP/SCS adopted by SCAG in April 2016 contains a set of existing socioeconomic projections used as the basis for the SCAG’s transportation planning efforts. They include projections of population, housing, and employment at the regional, county, sub-regional, jurisdictional, census tract, and transportation analysis zone levels. The RTP/SCS includes policies and regulations set forth to ensure development within the SCAG regional area is within planned and forecasted socioeconomic projections. Goals established within the RTP/SCS include the following: • 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 our transportation system. • Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking). • Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. • Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation. • Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. Not Consistent. Under the No Build Alternative, no changes to the existing roadways or freeway infrastructure would occur in the project area. This alternative would not maximize mobility and accessibility of the regional transportation system as existing freeway deficiencies would remain in current and future year conditions. Consistent. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in the construction of improvements identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS. Construction of these programmed improvements would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP Major Initiative pertaining to improving Highway and Arterial Capacity, specifically focusing on achieving maximum productivity by adding capacity, primarily by closing gaps in the system and improving access. Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)The FTIP is a capital listing of all transportation projects proposed over a 6-year period for the SCAG region. The projects include highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, and freeway ramps, etc. The FTIP is prepared to implement projects and programs listed in the RTP and is developed in compliance with state and federal requirements. Not Consistent. Under the No Build Alternative, no changes to the existing roadways or freeway infrastructure would occur in the project area. This alternative would not construct improvements programmed in the FTIP that would minimize congestion in the area. Consistent. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in the construction of improvements identified in the FTIP. Construction of these programmed improvements would minimize congestion in the area (which would meet the RTP’s overarching transportation goals) and would fulfill improvements identified in the FTIP. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-10 Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan (2011) Goals established within the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan include the following: Land Use Goal 1: Create a diverse and integrated balance of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Growth Management Goal 7: Maintain orderly, efficient patterns of growth that enhance the quality of life for the residents of Lake Elsinore. Circulation Goal 6: Optimize the efficiency and safety of the transportation system within the City of Lake Elsinore. Circulation Policy 6.1: The interconnection and coordination of traffic signals shall be achieved through two processes, namely the requirements in the conditions of approval on development projects and/or through the implementation of Capital Improvement Program projects. Conservation Goal 1: Identify and conserve important biological habitats where feasible while balancing the economic growth and private property right interests of the City, its residents, and landowners. Conservation Goal 2: Protect sensitive plant and wildlife species residing or occurring within the City. Conservation Goal 10: Encourage the preservation, protection, and restoration of historical and cultural resources. Public Safety/Welfare Goal 1: Continue to coordinate with the Air Quality Management District and the City’s Building Department to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is emitted into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites. Not Consistent. Under the No Build Alternative, no changes to the existing roadways or freeway infrastructure would occur in the project area. This alternative would not provide an efficient transportation network for traffic between the State highway and areas in Lake Elsinore that would minimize conflicts with automobile traffic and incompatibility with other land uses. Consistent. The General Plan (2011) contains goals and policies that aim to minimize traffic congestion and provide adequate transportation facilities in a safe and efficient manner. The goals and policies identified in the City’s General Plan resemble those of the RTP/SCS that address mobility, traffic safety, environmental concerns, and land use consistency as the major traffic study factors to identify existing traffic conditions and to assess the future effects on area traffic patterns/flow. Since either alternative would be consistent with the General Plan and, since the General Plan shall be consistent with the RTP/SCS, it is reasonable to infer that either alternative is consistent with policies set forth in the City’s General Plan. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-11Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the long-term conservation of species and their habitats in western Riverside County including: • Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool/Fairy Shrimp Habitat • Riparian/Riverine Species • Burrowing Owl • Least Bell’s Vireo • Migratory and Other Protected Birds • Bats The MSHCP also provides guidelines for the following: • Wildlife Connectivity • MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements • Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines • Drainage • Toxics • Lighting • Noise • Barriers • Invasive Species Not applicable. Although the project area is within the MSHCP, no changes to the physical setting would occur under the No Build Alternative as there would be no improvements to the existing roadway or freeway network. Consistent. Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 would be consistent as indicated below. In response to a request from Caltrans dated June 30, 2017, the USFWS and CDFW issued their concurrence on July, date, 2017, that the project is consistent with the MSHCP (see correspondence in Appendix K of this IS/EA). Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool/Fairy Shrimp Habitat. The project would permanently affect 0.211 acre and temporarily affect 0.020 acre of potential jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. No wetland waters of the U.S. would be affected. In addition, 0.280 acre of CDFW regulated streambed would be permanently affected by the project and 0.044 acre of CDFW regulated streambed/riparian habitat would be temporarily affected by the project. To mitigate for impacts to streambed/riparian habitat and non-wetland waters, one or a combination of the following would compensate for impacts: on-site restoration, on-site habitat enhancement, off-site participation in an in-lieu fee program, and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for habitat creation. Mitigation ratios for impacts to waters typically vary from 1:1 to 5:1. Negotiation with Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will take place to establish final mitigation ratios. Riparian/Riverine Species. Several depressions within the project BSA were evaluated in 2010 as potential vernal pools. The results of the 2010 fairy shrimp habitat assessment found that the depressions within the BSA did not have the vegetative, hydrologic, or soil characteristics associated with vernal pools and would not support federally listed fairy shrimp species. However, during the March 2017 consultation with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, the USFWS raised concerns, Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-12 Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 based on new information, related to potential impacts to threatened/endangered fairy shrimp species. The USFWS stated that there was a new recent record of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) in Riverside County, and that the depressions on site may support this species. Based on this new information, avoidance and minimization measures were developed. Potential effects to listed fairy shrimp would be avoided and minimized by the measures outlined in Section 2.21.4. The planned project would not impact LBV habitat through direct permanent removal and/or indirect permanent degradation of existing riparian/riverine vegetation. However, potential temporary indirect effects may occur. Potential temporary, indirect effects to LBV would be avoided and minimized by the conservation measures outlined in Section 2.21.4. Burrowing Owl. The focused owl survey determined that the burrowing owl is absent from the project site at this time. Per the MSHCP, a pre-construction survey for this species would be required 30 days prior to project development (i.e., ground-disturbing activities). Migratory Birds and Other Protected Birds. To avoid impacts to migratory birds, vegetation clearing is to take place outside of the active breeding season, (typically set as February 15 through September 1) in order to comply with the MSHCP and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If vegetation removal must occur during this avoidance period, then a nest survey by a qualified biologist is required. The nest survey shall be conducted for three consecutive days and no more than three days prior to clearing. If an active nest is observed, then the project would be postponed until the breeding season is finished. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-13Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Bats. The project site contains potentially suitable roosting habitat for bats within existing structures (e.g., bridge structures, culverts, and crevices, etc.). Potential effects to bat species would be avoided and minimized by the measures outlined in Section 2.20.4. Wildlife Connectivity. The project would not further limit wildlife connectivity/movement. The northern portion of the MSHCP Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 provides for movement of species along the lower San Jacinto River to Proposed Linkage 8. The project would not directly impact riparian habitat within the San Jacinto River or other regulated riparian resources in the BSA. Temporary impacts to localized wildlife movement are not expected during construction. MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements. As discussed in the Results and Impacts section above, because the project is either not within and/or not impacting target Criteria Cell conservation areas, and through implementation of Conservation Measures identified above, the project would be consistent with Reserve Assembly Requirements. Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface. Temporary indirect impacts include construction-related impacts such as dust, potential fuel spills from construction equipment, possible night lighting during construction, and activities of equipment or personnel outside designated construction areas as well as operational impacts such as on adjacent habitats caused by storm water runoff, traffic, and litter. In addition, construction may indirectly impact riparian/riverine habitats permanently through enhancing the germination and proliferation of nonnative invasive plant species. Invasive plant species are those that out-compete native plants; they are of particular concern. Indirect impacts are difficult to quantify since they result from Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-14 Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 normal activities and can change from day to day. These indirect impacts may affect conserved habitats within the project area. The MSHCP Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface are intended to address indirect effects associated with development in proximity to conservation areas. The project will comply with the guidelines as identified and discussed below. Drainage. The project will incorporate measures for reducing potential stormwater impacts to conservation areas and other downstream areas per the project’s Storm Water Data Report. These include design pollution prevention BMPs, permanent treatment BMPs, and temporary construction BMPs. In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared for this project. Toxics. As stated above, the project will incorporate measures to reduce and prevent toxic discharge into conservation areas and other adjacent habitats through incorporation of pollution prevention BMPs. Lighting. The project will install shielded night lighting, directed away from conservation areas to protect species and to ensure ambient lighting in the conservation areas is not increased. Any new lighting fixtures that would be installed within 300 feet of the San Jacinto River shall be wildlife-friendly. Noise. The project is not anticipated to have adverse effects related to land use noise standards. The BSA does not lie within the target conservation areas of Criteria Cells 4548, 4745, and 4838. Riparian habitat within and along the San Jacinto River in Criteria Cell Nos. 4646, 4647, and 4743 is considered to be the target conservation areas within these cells. The riparian habitat within and along the San Jacinto River within these Criteria Cells would not be directly impacted by the project. Therefore the existing I-15 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-15Table 2.1.B: Consistency With State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy Alternative 1(No Build Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 noise levels would not change as a result of the project. Barriers. The project is not anticipated to have adverse effects related to unauthorized access to conservation areas. In addition and as stated above, the project would not directly affect target conservation areas within the MSHCP Criteria Cells. Invasive Species. The project would not utilize invasive, nonnative plant species listed in Table 6-2 of Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface of the MSHCP, Volume 1, Section 6.1.4, in landscaping. BMP = Biological Management Plan BSA = biological study area CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife RCA = Regional Conservation Authority RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-16 2.1.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities1 There are no parks or recreational facilities within the project limits. Parks and recreation resources within 0.5 mile of the project area are illustrated in previously referenced Figure 1.1. As identified in Figure 2.1.2, there are three public parks: Summerhill Park (5 acres), Linear Park (0.5 acre), and Yarborough Park (3 acres) within 0.5 mile of the project area. Summerhill Park is a City park located on the corner of Canyon Estates Drive and Summerhill Drive. A large multi-use sports field dominates this site. Additional amenities include a tot play area with creative play equipment and restroom facilities. Linear Park is also a City park and is located on Canyon Estates Drive between High Crest Drive and Canyon Crest Drive. This pocket-park provides seating areas and small turf areas at both the west and east sides of the park (connected via paved walking path) in a passive use environment. Yarborough Park is located on the corner of Flint Street and Poe Street and includes picnic facilities, restroom facilities, shaded areas, a tot lot, and open turf areas. All three parks are in the immediate vicinity of the project but would not be affected by any Build Alternative. In addition to these parks, Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium is located at the corner of Diamond Drive and Malaga Road, approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project limits. The facility is a full-service baseball stadium that can accommodate up to 8,000 people for baseball games, and has a seating capacity of up to 14,000 people for concerts, race cars, motocross races, and boxing and martial arts competitions. The stadium is separated from I-15 by multiple frontage roads and buildings. None of the planned improvements or construction activities would result in use of the stadium. During construction of the project, no street closures would occur near the stadium; therefore, access to the stadium would not be affected. The stadium would not be affected by either of the Build Alternatives. 2.1.5 Environmental Consequences Table 2.1.B provides a summary of the project’s consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs for each of the Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative. 2.1.5.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in any temporary impacts related to land use as the No Build Alternative does not include any construction activities. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Any potential impacts associated with changes in land use within the project area under this alternative are considered to be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in any temporary impacts related to land use. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Any potential impacts associated with changes in land use within the project area under Alternative 3 would be considered permanent and are addressed below. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in any temporary impacts related to land use. 1 City of Lake Elsinore. 2008. Parks and Recreation Department. Parks Facilities Map and Parks Amenities Chart. November. §¨¦15 C A M I N O D EL N ORTE MAIN STREETLAKESHORE DRIVE AUTO CENTER DRIVE CANYONESTATES DRIVE RAILROADCANYON R O A D MI SSI ON TRAI LFRAN K L I N S TREETS U M M ERHILLDRIVECASINO R OAD G R A P E S T R E ETSanJacintoRive rSummerhill Park Yarborough Park Lake ElsinoreDiamond Stadium Linear Park MALAGAROA D Lake Elsinore COLLIER AVE N U E Recreational FacilitiesSOURCE: Riverside County, 2015 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-1-2_RecFacil.mxd (10/4/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.1.2 0 750 1,500 Feet S!!N Project Footprint Parks Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-18 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-19 ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Any potential impacts associated with changes in land use within the project area under this alternative are considered to be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in any temporary impacts related to land use. 2.1.5.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts related to land use as the No Build Alternative does not include any construction activities. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET As identified in Table 2.1.B, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the identified local and regional land use plans. As previously identified, two public parks (Linear Park and Summerhill Park) are near the project limits but would not be affected by Alternative 2. Although these parks would be considered 4(f) resources, Alternative 2 would not require the use of a Section 4(f) park or recreational facility (Appendix B – Resources Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)). For improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, substantial direct and indirect impacts to land use would not occur under Alternative 2. Modifications made to this interchange would not change the nature of land uses in the area as the area surrounding this existing interchange is built out and heavily urbanized. Section 2.2.2 of this document provides additional analysis on growth-related effects associated with planned improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. For improvements associated with the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, minor direct and indirect impacts to land use would occur under Alternative 2. Construction of improvements associated with this new interchange would increase accessibility to and from the surrounding area. Current surrounding land uses consist of low-density residential and vacant property. While the new interchange would contribute to the eventual change in land use (low-density residential and vacant properties to more urban uses), these changes have already been accounted for in the City’s General Plan. Section 2.2.2 of this document provides additional analysis on growth-related effects associated with construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. No permanent impacts associated with land use or Section 4(f) resources would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE As identified in Table 2.1.B, Alternative 3 would also be consistent with the identified local and regional land use plans. Similar to Alternative 2, two public parks (Linear Park and Summerhill Park) are near the project limits for Alternative 3. However, these parks would not be affected by Alternative 3. Although these parks would be considered 4(f) resources, Alternative 3 would not require the use of a Section 4(f) park or recreational facility (Appendix B – Resources Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)). For improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, substantial direct and indirect impacts to land use would not occur under Alternative 3. Modifications made to this interchange would not change the nature of land uses in the area as the area surrounding this existing interchange is built out and heavily urbanized. Section 2.2.2 of this Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-20 document provides additional analysis on growth-related effects associated with proposed improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. As identified for Alternative 2, improvements associated with the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, minor direct and indirect impacts to land use would occur under Alternative 3. Construction of improvements associated with this new interchange would increase accessibility to and from the surrounding area. Current surrounding land uses consist of low-density residential and vacant property. While the new interchange would contribute to the eventual change in land use (low-density residential and vacant properties to more urban uses), these changes have already been accounted for in the City’s General Plan. Section 2.2.2 of this document provides additional analysis on growth-related effects associated with construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. No permanent impacts associated with land use or Section 4(f) resources would occur with implementation of Alternative 3. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE As identified in Table 2.1.B, Alternative 4 would also be consistent with the identified local and regional land use plans. Similar to Alternative 2, two public parks (Linear Park and Summerhill Park) are near the project limits for Alternative 4. However, these parks would not be affected by Alternative 4. Although these parks would be considered 4(f) resources, Alternative 4 would not require the use of a Section 4(f) park or recreational facility (Appendix B, Resources Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)). For improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, substantial direct and indirect impacts to land use would not occur under Alternative 4. Modifications made to this interchange would not change the nature of land uses in the area as the area surrounding this existing interchange is built out and heavily urbanized. Section 2.2.2 of this document provides additional analysis on growth-related effects associated with proposed improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. As identified for Alternative 2, improvements associated with the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, minor direct and indirect impacts to land use would occur under Alternative 4. Construction of improvements associated with this new interchange would increase accessibility to and from the surrounding area. Current surrounding land uses consist of low-density residential and vacant property. While the new interchange would contribute to the eventual change in land use (low-density residential and vacant properties to more urban uses), these changes have already been accounted for in the City’s General Plan. Section 2.2.2 of this document provides additional analysis on growth-related effects associated with construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. No permanent impacts associated with land use or Section 4(f) resources would occur with implementation of Alternative 4. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: II. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Farmland maps are compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of the California Government Code. These maps utilize data from the United States Department of Conservation United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey and current land use information using eight mapping Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-21 categories and represent an inventory of agricultural resources within Riverside County. The maps depict currently urbanized lands and a qualitative sequence of agricultural designations. Maps and statistics use a process that integrates aerial photo interpretation, field mapping, a computerized mapping system, and public review. No portion of the project site is designated as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland by the FMMP.1 As no conversion of such farmland would occur, no impact related to this issue would result from implementation of the project. No mitigation is required. II. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Williamson Act2 contracts restrict land development of contract lands. The contracts typically limit land use in contract lands to agriculture, recreation, and open space, unless otherwise stated in the contract. The project site is not located within an area covered by a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no cancellation or non-renewal action would occur. Neither the site nor surrounding properties are currently utilized or planned on being utilized for agricultural uses. Implementation of the project would not result in the conversion of Williamson Act contract land or conversion of agriculturally zoned land to a non-agricultural use. No impact related to these issues would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. II. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or causing rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is not located within an area zoned for forest land, timberland, or an area zoned Timberland Production; therefore, no conflict would occur. Neither the site nor surrounding properties are currently utilized or planned on being utilized for forest or timberland uses. Implementation of the project would not result in the conversion of forest land or conversion of land zoned for forestry to a non-forest use. No impact related to these issues would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. II. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As previously identified, the project site is not located within an area zoned for forest land, timberland, or an area zoned Timberland Production. Implementation of the project would not result in the conversion of forest land or conversion of land zoned for forestry to a non-forest use. No impact related to these issues would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. II. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As no agricultural activity occurs on or adjacent to the project site, and because the project area has been previously planned for non-agricultural uses, implementation of the project would not cause changes in the existing environment that would result in the conversion 1 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2012. 2 The Williamson Act is a procedure authorized under State law to preserve agricultural lands as well as open space. Property owners entering into a Williamson Act contract receive a reduction in property taxes in return for agreeing to protect the land’s open space or agricultural values. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-22 of farmland to a non-agricultural use. As a result, no impact related to this issue would occur, and no mitigation is required. X. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project; therefore, no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required. XIV. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Schools? No Impact. The project does not include the development or occupation of residential units, nor are the improvements to existing roadways and freeway interchanges anticipated to increase additional permanent employment in the project area. In the absence of any increase in local student enrollment or increased usage of school facilities, the project would not result in a direct or indirect impact in student enrollment at schools within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD). Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Parks? No Impact. The project would not result in the development of residential units; therefore, no increase in population would result from the proposed action. In the absence of any increased population, no increased demand on existing park facilities in the City would occur. Therefore, no impacts would result from implementation of the project. No mitigation is required. Other public facilities? No Impact. Since the project consists of infrastructure improvements to existing roadways and interchanges, implementation of the project would not result in an increase in the local population. Without an increase in the local population, there would be no increased demand on library, government, or community support services associated with the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required. XV. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. No residential component or other use that would cause a direct or indirect increase in population is planned; therefore, no direct or indirect demand on neighborhood/regional parks or recreational facilities would occur. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of a recreational facility. No impacts would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-23 XV. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project consists of improvements to existing roadways and freeway interchanges. As previously stated, no residential component or other use that would cause a direct or indirect increase in population is planned. Therefore, no development or expansion of recreational facilities is required. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. XI. a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. Based on the Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) established by California Department of Conservation, the project site is designated as MRZ-3.1 The MRZ-3 classification is assigned when the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. The project site is currently developed with an existing freeway facility. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the continual operation of the freeway facility. The project site is not designated as an area with known significant mineral resource value. Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Therefore, no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required. XI. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource recovery or production on the City’s General Plan. No impact related to this issue would result from implementation of the project. No mitigation is required. 2.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on the analysis contained in Section 2.1, the project is not anticipated to have impacts associated with land use. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. 1 City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. General Plan Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report, Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones, December 2011. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.1-24 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-1 2.2 Growth 2.2.1 Regulatory Setting The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 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…” 2.2.2 Background This section is based on information from the following documents prepared for the project: Community Impact Assessment (December 2010) Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2012) Second Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2015) Third Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (February 2015) Demographic information from the 2012–2035 SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts was also utilized. As illustrated in Figure 2.2.1, the project area for growth is within the City of Lake Elsinore, with a focus on Census Tract 427.15, Census Tract 430.01, Census Tract 430.06, and Census Tract 464.04. All of the study area census tracts are within the City of Lake Elsinore. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county. Census tracts are delineated by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting data. Census tract boundaries normally follow visible features, but may follow governmental unit boundaries and other non- visible features in some instances; they always nest within counties. Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions, census tracts average about 4,000 inhabitants.1 1 United States Census Bureau. 2010. Definition of a Census Tract, Question and Answer Center, website: https://ask.census.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/245, November 15, 2010. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-2 This page intentionally left blank Study Area Census TractsSOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-2-1_Census.mxd (10/4/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.2.1 0 2,000 4,000 Feet S!!N Project Footprint Census Tract Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-4 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-5 2.2.3 First-cut Screening Caltrans’ Guidance for Preparers of Growth-Related, Indirect Impact Analyses (May 2006) provides methods for evaluating a proposed highway transportation project in terms of whether the proposed project may result in growth-related impacts. The Guidance for Preparers of Growth-Related, Indirect Impact Analyses provides methods for determining the growth-related effects of transportation improvement projects. This guidance document provides a first-cut screening approach to growth impact analysis that identifies the need for and the extent of growth-related impact analysis based on the responses to various questions related to a project’s change in accessibility, its potential to influence growth, and the potential for project- related growth to impact resources of concern. The potential growth-related impacts of the project were considered in the context of the first-cut screening analysis approach to assess the likely growth-potential effect of the project, and whether further analysis is necessary, based on consideration of the following: How, if at all, does the proposed project potentially change accessibility? I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. At the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, the project would widen and lengthen the on-ramps and off-ramps, replace existing ramps with a new ramp to enhance circulation, and improve the Grape Street/Railroad Canyon intersection immediately east of the existing interchange. The project requires reconfiguration of the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange to improve operation of the existing interchange and local circulation, enhance safety, alleviate existing deficiencies, and accommodate projected future traffic volumes based on existing and planned development in the area. In addition, the project is within an urban area. Due to the nature of the built-out land use patterns and the absence of resources of concern within this area, the likelihood of this highway project causing growth-related impacts is low.1 I-15/Franklin Street Interchange. The project would also result in the construction of a new interchange approximately 1,160 feet north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing as well as construct, realign, widen, and extend Auto Center Drive and Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive. The surrounding area in the vicinity of the new interchange consists of low- density residential uses and vacant property that could be considered a suburban area. Typically, a suburban area may have a greater potential for growth-related impact concerns due to the greater presence of open space/vacant land and resources of concern. The project would occur in the northeast area of Lake Elsinore, an area planned for extensive commercial and residential expansion growth through the City’s General Plan Build Out Year. This new interchange would improve accessibility to and from the surrounding area for existing, approved, and future planned development in all directions from the project area. Therefore, this project would result in a change in accessibility that has been planned for and anticipated by future developments, and has already identified in the 2012–2035 SCAG RTP and the 2017 FTIP. Any future development within the vicinity of the project is anticipated, regardless of whether or not the project is implemented. Although the project would increase accessibility between homes and jobs, and would accommodate the planned rate of growth in the area, the project is not expected to substantially influence the overall amount or type of local or regional growth that has been identified by the City. Growth in Lake Elsinore is expected to follow the trend of Riverside County’s population 1 California Department of Transportation. 2006. Guidance for Preparers of Growth-Related, Indirect Impact Analyses, May. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-6 growth, which is fueled by the migration of people from other parts of the State, which is not expected to be largely dependent on the construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. Therefore, the rate of growth is not expected to be substantially increased with the implementation of the build alternatives. How, if at all, do the project type, project location, and growth-pressure potentially influence growth? I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. Current and projected development patterns depend on the supply of jobs in Riverside and Orange Counties, and the abundance of affordable housing in outlying counties. This pattern of development is likely to continue with or without the project. The project would not include sufficient capacity to substantially improve commuting times through the project area. Examples of projects likely to have excess capacity include extensions or expansions of public infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand. This project would not exceed project-specific demand, and the purpose of this project is to relieve current traffic congestion at this existing freeway interchange. According to the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan, Railroad Canyon Road is a major arterial that supports more than 40,000 vehicles per day. Traffic studies conducted in 2014 reveal that level of service (LOS) (measurements of density, delay, and travel time) at on- and off-ramp segments of Railroad Canyon Road are expected to increasingly deteriorate by 2035 (see Section 2.7, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities). This major arterial currently allows consumers to reach Lake Elsinore, Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium, Walmart, and various shopping centers located along Casino Drive. These commercial areas are key locations for economic stimulus; hence, this arterial is an important access pathway to retail and recreation locations. However, the improvements identified under the three Build Alternatives for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange are unlikely to attract additional residential or commercial development or new population into the Lake Elsinore planning area as the area surrounding the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange is already built out with urban uses. Improvements to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange would reduce congestion along this major arterial to these commercial areas while accommodating future growth and planned development that would be present whether the project is constructed or not. Therefore, given the built out nature of the area surrounding the existing interchange and the nature of the interchange improvements, the project is not expected to substantially influence the overall amount or type of regional growth. I-15/Franklin Street Interchange. Pressure for growth is typically a result of a combination of factors including economic, market, and land use demands and conditions. New transportation facilities in areas without those facilities can influence the amount and location of growth in an area, in combination with other pressures such as economic and market conditions. For the component associated with the construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange, the project’s impact on accessibility is more than what was identified for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange because of the new connection provided between I-15 and the surrounding area. Due to the lack of development currently existing within the area surrounding the planned interchange site and because there is no access to the freeway in this area currently, it is “reasonably foreseeable” that growth-related effects would occur. However, the construction of this component is unlikely to attract additional residential or commercial development or new population into the Lake Elsinore planning area beyond what is already projected by the City Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-7 and region. The City of Lake Elsinore has several goals and policies that provide a long-term strategy to manage growth and development patterns, including zoning and subdivision regulations and development impact fees. This component of the project is unlikely to encourage the development of more acreage of employment generating land uses in the area. The local and regional growth patterns and projections shown below would presumably be realized with or without either of the Build Alternatives, in recognition of broad, social/economic policies and trends that are anticipated to occur throughout this part of Riverside County. Table 2.2.A provides the 2008 population and projected 2010, 2015, and 2035 populations for Riverside County, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the project area census tracts. Table 2.2.A: Population, Household, and Employment Estimates City/County/Census Tract 2008 2010 2015 2035 Percentage Increase from 2010 to 2035 Population Census Tract 427.15 6,7631 7,795 9,970 10,764 58.9 Census Tract 430.01 5,5641 6,120 11,861 22,246 299.8 Census Tract 430.06 4,9661 5,276 6,744 8,759 76.4 Census Tract 464.04 5131 518 546 586 14.2 City of Lake Elsinore 50,200 51,138 70,500 93,800 86.9 County of Riverside 2,128,000 2,242,745 2,592,000 3,324,000 56.2 Households Census Tract 427.15 1,5491 2,328 2,958 3,189 105.9 Census Tract 430.01 1,5251 1,972 3,894 7,474 390.1 Census Tract 430.06 1,3071 1,532 1,987 2,657 103.3 Census Tract 464.04 2721 278 288 299 9.9 City of Lake Elsinore 14,600 15,239 21,000 28,700 96.6 County of Riverside 679,000 720,531 834,000 1,092,000 60.8 Employment Census Tract 427.15 1,3171 1,575 2,053 2,799 112.5 Census Tract 430.01 2,2491 2,540 3,075 3,909 73.8 Census Tract 430.06 3,2081 3,456 3,907 4,604 43.5 Census Tract 464.04 9591 1,130 1,445 1,933 101.6 City of Lake Elsinore 10,300 12,152 15,000 20,100 95.1 County of Riverside 664,000 784,998 939,000 1,243,000 87.2 Source: Southern California Association of Governments. 2012. Adopted 2012 SCAG RTP Growth Forecast and Adopted 2008 SCAG RTP Growth Forecast, by Census Tract. Website: http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/ SocioEconomicLibrary.aspx?keyword=Forecasting (accessed January 5, 2015). 1 Data at the census tract level were not available for year 2008; therefore, population, housing, and employment estimates for year 2008 were interpolated from available data from years 2005 and 2010. By 2035, the population in Lake Elsinore is anticipated to total 93,800 residents. The number of households within the City is also anticipated to increase at a similar rate. By 2035, the City is projected to have 28,700 total households. Currently, jobs within the City of Lake Elsinore have grown at a much slower rate than population or households. As identified in Table 2.2.A, by 2035, there are anticipated to be 20,100 jobs in Lake Elsinore. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-8 The potential for growth-inducing effects would be the highest on undeveloped and unplanned land because these areas generally have limited existing transportation infrastructure. The project would enhance operations along I-15 that currently experience a constrained level of freeway and local road access. Growth will emerge in some locations from land uses that change in response to market demands. The majority of the land adjacent to the planned I-15/ Franklin Street interchange is currently undeveloped. Based on the City’s General Plan, these lands are designated for commercial, business, and high/medium density residential uses. The construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange is not anticipated to result in the rezoning or reclassification of lands surrounding the future I-15/Franklin Street interchange area in the community general plan from these existing land use designations to a more intensive land use. The project is not out of conformance with the growth-related policies of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. The overarching goal identified in the City’s General Plan calls for an orderly, efficient pattern of growth that enhances the quality of life for the residents of Lake Elsinore. The Build Alternatives do not propose land use that is inconsistent with this goal or other related policies. Moreover, the fact that the project is called for in the FTIP and for which each City provides input, suggests that growth policies will effectively manage any growth created by the Build Alternative. The project is unlikely to lead to the intensification of development densities or schedules for development. Previously identified Table 2.1.A provides a status of developments within the proximity of the project. These developments would presumably exist under their current schedules with or without the project. The construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange that would occur under all of the Build Alternatives would conform with the City’s General Plan and does not conflict with the City of Lake Elsinore’s managed growth policies. In addition, the Build Alternatives are unlikely to alter the historic and projected growth patterns within the City of Lake Elsinore and the County of Riverside and do not encourage growth on undeveloped and unplanned land. The planned transportation improvements of this project accommodate existing traffic in the area. Based on the analysis provided above, this component of the project would have no substantial potential for stimulating the location, rate, timing or amount of growth in or adjacent to the project study area. Development of this interchange and associated population growth is not expected to cause substantial externalities to the community of Lake Elsinore. Is project-related growth reasonably foreseeable as defined in NEPA? I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. As previously stated, there is an existing need to improve operations and congestion at the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. While these improvements would accommodate existing, approved, and planned growth in the area, these improvements are not reliant on the timing of growth that could occur within the area. In addition, the project does not substantially increase the capacity of the transportation system and does not provide new transportation facilities in areas without those facilities. Therefore, it is not expected to influence the amount, timing, or location of growth in the City of Lake Elsinore. Because the planned improvements to I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange are not expected to influence the amount, timing, or location of growth in the area, no reasonably foreseeable project-related growth is anticipated as a result of the project. I-15/Franklin Street Interchange. For the component associated with the construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange, the project’s impact on accessibility is more than what was identified for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange because of the new connection provided between I-15 and the surrounding area. Due to the lack of development currently existing within the area surrounding the planned interchange site and because there is no access to the freeway in this area currently, it is “reasonably foreseeable” that growth-related Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-9 effects would occur. The project would likely accelerate the rate of growth in the area by making it more accessible, but would not result in new unplanned growth since the surrounding area is already designated for future land uses in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, based on the analysis provided previously. If there is project-related growth, how, if at all, will that impact resources of concern? I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. For improvements to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, the project’s impact on accessibility is limited to improving the operational performance of an existing interchange. It is not “reasonably foreseeable” that project-related growth will occur and, overall, this project component will have very little influence on future growth. As previously stated, the project is within an urban area. Due to the nature of the built-out land use patterns and the absence of resources of concern within this urban area, the likelihood of these improvements impacting resources of concern is low. No further analysis with respect to growth is required for this component of the project. I-15/Franklin Street Interchange. As previously identified, it is “reasonably foreseeable” that growth-related effects would occur with the construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. The project would likely accelerate the rate of growth in the area by making it more accessible, but would not result in new unplanned growth since the surrounding area is already designated for future land uses in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. For resources of concern, project-specific effects have been identified in this environmental document. Although there is a possibility that planned growth-related effects associated with the I-15/Franklin Street interchange could occur, existing regulations and standards to resources of concern would still apply for other projects in the area. Resources of concern include cultural, visual, and biological resources. For cultural resources, future projects may result in the potential disturbance of both known and as yet unidentified historic properties, archaeological sites, and paleontological resources. For biological resources, future projects may result in habitat fragmentation and division of larger tracts of habitat into smaller noncontiguous areas as a result of artificial structures such as roads, buildings, and other infrastructure. For visual resources, future projects may result in the conversion of portions of a semi-rural area into a more urban landscape and changes to the viewer exposure to the area. Each resource of concern is discussed in detail in this environmental document with identification of the laws and regulations that would pertain to the development of this project. In addition, a comprehensive discussion of cumulative effects to these resources of concern has been provided in Section 2.23. Discussion in Section 2.23 takes into account the nature of cumulative projects in relation to this project. Based on the analysis provided above and within each of the chapters of this environmental document, it was determined that this component of the project would not result in substantial unplanned project-related growth, and no further analysis is required. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: XIII. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not contain a residential, industrial, or commercial component. Therefore, no increase in population would result from the proposed Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.2-10 action. The growth in the City and the County is expected to occur with or without the project. The project improves the function of the interchange and local intersections in the City of Lake Elsinore. The improvements would accommodate the growth planned for the City of Lake Elsinore and, therefore, would not be expected to cause new unplanned growth in the study area. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on the analysis contained in Section 2.2, the project is not anticipated to have adverse impacts associated with project-related growth. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-1 Community Impacts 2.3 Community Character and Cohesion 2.3.1 Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA), 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 USC 109[h]) directs that final decisions regarding 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. 2.3.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the information from the following documents prepared for the project: Community Impact Assessment (December 2010) Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2012) Second Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2015) Third Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (February 2015) Community cohesion is the degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their neighborhood, and their levels of commitment to their community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. Elements of community cohesion can be found in demographic data used to profile communities from the 2000 and 2010 United States Census. Some specific indicators of community cohesion are as follows: Race and Ethnicity: Racial and ethnic homogeneity is associated with a higher degree of community cohesion. Age: Elderly and stay-at-home parents tend to be more active in their community. They have time to become involved. Household Size: Households of two or more people tend to correlate with a higher degree of community cohesion. Housing Tenure: Households that have been part of a community for a longer period of time tend to correlate with a higher degree of community cohesion. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-2 Type of Housing Occupancy: Communities with a high percentage of owner-occupied residences are typically more cohesive because their population tends to be less mobile. Because they have a financial stake in their communities, homeowners often take a greater interest in what is happening in their communities than renters do. This means they often have a stronger sense of belonging to their communities. Transit-Dependent Population: Residents who tend to walk or use public transportation for travel tend to correlate with a higher degree of community cohesion. 2.3.2.1 Race and Ethnicity Table 2.3.A provides the racial and ethnic composition for the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, and the project area census tracts. Previously referenced Figure 2.2.1 provides the location of the project area census tracts. As identified in Table 2.3.A, the County of Riverside is predominantly White, followed by Hispanic and Other. The composition of the City of Lake Elsinore is similarly predominantly White (60 percent), followed by Hispanic (48 percent) and Other (22 percent). When compared to the City and the County, Census Tract 430.01 and Census Tract 464.04 have the highest percentage of American Indian (1.4 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively). Census Tract 430.06 has the highest percentage of people who claimed to be of “Other” ethnicity (29.3 percent). Census Tract 430.06 has the highest percentage of Hispanics (63 percent) while Census Tract 464.04 has the highest percentages of Whites (63.6 percent). Census Tract 427.15 has the highest percentage of Asians (10.6 percent) and the lowest percentage of Other (13.5 percent). Table 2.3.A: 2010 Racial and Ethnic Composition Jurisdiction Percentage1 White Black American Indian/Native Alaskan Asian Hawaiian/ Pacific Islanders Other Hispanic2 Census Tract 427.15 62.5% 6.6% 0.6% 10.6% 0.3% 13.5% 35.8% Census Tract 430.01 61.1% 3.8% 1.4% 1.5% 0.4% 26.4% 60.1% Census Tract 430.06 57.3% 5.1% 1.3% 2.3% 0.3% 29.3% 63.0% Census Tract 464.04 63.6% 4.7% 1.5% 4.6% 0.2% 20.3% 42.2% City of Lake Elsinore 60.0% 5.3% 0.9% 5.8% 0.3% 21.6% 48.4% County of Riverside 61.0% 6.4% 1.1% 6.0% 0.3% 20.5% 45.5% Source: United States Census Bureau. Census 2010. Table QT-P4 – Race, Combinations of Two Races, and Non-Hispanic or Latino: 2010, Table QT-P10 – Hispanic or Latino by Type: 2010. 1 Percentages do not add to 100 percent because the White, Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and Other categories include persons identified with one race only; the Hispanic category overlaps with other categories. Individuals may report more than one race. 2 The Census Bureau recognizes Hispanic heritage as an ethnic group rather than as a separate group. If the percent Hispanic is added to the other racial groups, the total may exceed 100 percent. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-3 2.3.2.2 Household Size As identified in Table 2.3.B, the populations of the City of Lake Elsinore, the County of Riverside, and the State all increased between 2000 and 2010. The number of persons per household for Census tracts in the study area ranged from 2.82 to 3.22 persons per household, with the City of Lake Elsinore having the greatest number of persons per household at 3.48. Table 2.3.B: Population and Household Size Demographic Characteristics Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 City of Lake Elsinore County of Riverside California Total Population (2010) 12,805 5,593 4,703 5,590 51,821 2,189,641 37,253,956 Population Change (2000–2010) (+) 168% (+) 44% (+) 16% (+) 123% (+) 79% (+) 42% (+) 10% Persons per Household 2.82 3.00 3.22 2.95 3.48 3.14 2.90 Source: United States Census Bureau. Census 2010 and 2000. Table P1 – Total Population, Table P017001 – Households: Average Household Size, Table DP1 – Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. 2.3.2.3 Housing Tenure Table 2.3.C provides data on how long homeowners have been residing in their units for the study area census tracts, the City, and the County of Riverside. Table 2.3.C: Housing Tenure Jurisdiction/Area Tenure Tenure by Year Structure Built (%) 1969 or earlier 1970– 1979 1980– 1989 1990– 1999 2000– 2009 2010 or Later Census Tract 427.15 Owner 1.6% 5.1% 14.4% 24.4% 54.2% 0% Renter 0% 0% 8.3% 11.0% 80.7% 0% Census Tract 430.01 Owner 12.8% 37.3% 19.0% 14.5% 16.3% 0% Renter 31.7% 20.7% 12.9% 3.9%% 30.8% 0% Census Tract 430.06 Owner 42.8% 25.8% 21.2% 10.2% 0% 0% Renter 46.5% 15.7% 16.3% 1.5% 20.1% 0% Census Tract 464.04 Owner 14.2% 2.9% 11.1% 7.0% 60.0% 0% Renter 24.1% 7.5% 19.3% 3.1% 46.1% 0% City of Lake Elsinore Owner 6.9% 8.2% 19.1% 20.4% 44.7% 0.7% Renter 13.2% 14.0% 25.7% 13.3% 33.5% 0.3% County of Riverside Owner 17.3% 13.8% 21.7% 17.0% 29.8% 0.4% Renter 22.8% 17.2% 21.7% 14.7% 23.2% 0.4% Source: United States Census Bureau. Census 2012. Table B25036: Tenure By Year Structure Built, 2008–2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-4 As identified in Table 2.3.C, approximately 1.0 percent of occupants in the City of Lake Elsinore moved into their housing units in 2010 or later, and of the Census tracts within the study area, 0 percent of occupants moved into their housing units in 2010 or later. The City of Lake Elsinore has a higher proportion of residents that moved into their housing units between 2000 and 2009 than the County of Riverside overall. Census Tract 430.06 has a high percentage of residents who moved into their housing units in 1969 or earlier, at 42.8 percent for owners and 46.5 percent for renters. 2.3.2.4 Housing Occupancy Type Table 2.3.D provides data on the percentage of renter and owner-occupied residences for the study area census tracts, the City, and the County of Riverside. Table 2.3.D: Housing Profile Jurisdiction/Area Total Housing Units Type of Occupancy 1 Occupied Vacant Owner Renter Census Tract 427.15 88.8% (3,803) 11.2% (482) 71.2% 28.8% Census Tract 430.01 89.5% (1,670) 10.5% (195) 44.9% 55.1% Census Tract 430.06 88.0% (1,285) 12.0% (176) 44.2% 55.8% Census Tract 464.04 89.9% (1,701) 10.1% (191) 69.8% 30.2% City of Lake Elsinore 91.0% (14,788) 9.0% (1,465) 66.0% 34.0% County of Riverside 85.7% (686,260) 14.3% (114,447) 67.4% 32.6% Source: United States Census Bureau. Census 2010. Table H3 – Occupancy Status: Housing Units, Table H4 – Tenure – Occupied Housing Units, Table DP1– Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. 1 Percentages do not add up to 100 percent because not all respondents identified whether they owned or rented. 2 Housing Affordability Index (HAI) = (Median Family Income ÷ Qualifying Income ) × 100; Qualifying Income used for Housing Affordability Index for City and Census Tracts was an average of all four quarters of 2010. California Association of Realtors First-time Buyer Housing Affordability Index California and Counties 2000 to Present. Website: http://www.car.org/3550/xls/econxls/CA_FTB_HAI_Q12000toQ32013.xls (accessed February 19, 2014). 3 United States Census Bureau, 2012. Table B25077 – Median Value (Dollars): Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 2008–2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4 United States Census Bureau, 2012. Table B25064 – Median Gross Rent (Dollars), 2008 - 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. As identified in Table 2.3.D, Housing Profile, Census Tracts 427.15 and 464.04 demonstrate high rates of owner-occupancy similar to the rates exhibited by Lake Elsinore and Riverside County. 2.3.2.5 Transit-Dependent Population The Federal Transit Administration defines transit-dependent persons as those (1) without private transportation, (2) elderly (over age 65), (3) youths (under age 18), and (4) persons below poverty or median income levels defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects that the percentage of senior citizens in Southern California will continue to rise over the next two decades, with approximately one in six people expected to be over age 64 in 2030. Table 2.3.E provides the age distribution in the project census tracts, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the County of Riverside. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-5 Table 2.3.E: Age Distribution Jurisdiction/Area Median Age Percentage of Population < 18 18–34 35–64 > 64 Census Tract 427.15 31.7 30.8% 24.0% 37.9% 7.3% Census Tract 430.01 29.9 28.4% 29.4% 34.8% 7.4% Census Tract 430.06 29.2 31.4% 27.6% 35.1% 6.2% Census Tract 464.04 31.1 32.2% 23.3% 37.5% 7.1% City of Lake Elsinore 29.8 32.8% 25.1% 36.4% 5.7% County of Riverside 33.7 28.3% 23.3% 36.5% 11.8% Source: United States Census Bureau. 2010. Table P13 – Median Age by Sex: Total Population, Table P12 – Sex by Age: Total Population. As identified in Table 2.3.E, the median age for the County of Riverside residents in 2010 was 33.7 years. Individuals under 18 years of age comprised 28 percent of the County population in 2010. Senior citizens (age 65 and over) accounted for only 12 percent of the total population in the County in 2010. The median age in the City of Lake Elsinore was 29.8 years in 2010. Of the City’s residents, approximately 33 percent were below age 18 and 6 percent were over age 64. The County of Riverside has a higher median age of 33.7 years and a lower percentage of residents below age 18 (28 percent) but a higher percentage of people over age 64 (12 percent) when compared to the City. When compared to the County, all study area census tracts have a higher percentage of residents under age 18. For residents greater than age 64, all study area census tracts have a lower percentage of residents in this age group compared to the County’s average of 12 percent. Census Tract 430.06 (6 percent) is similar to the City’s average of 6 percent. In addition to identifying the age distribution, additional analysis pertaining to the percentage of the population that would be considered transit-dependent has been conducted for the project. This type of analysis changes the focus from the reasons why individuals may not drive (age, income, mobility) to identifying where there are limited vehicles available for individuals to use. Areas that have the largest disparity between auto drivers and autos available are more likely to be transit-dependent than areas that have nearly a one to one ratio between auto drivers and autos available. For those areas that do have a large disparity between drivers and autos available, there may be multiple reasons why this disparity exists. It could be due to age, income, mobility, or a combination of factors. A project alternative would cause an adverse effect if it would displace a disproportionately high percentage of transit-dependent persons. Table 2.3.F provides the results of these transit-dependent inputs. As identified in Table 2.3.F, the percentage of the population that is transit-dependent is higher in Census Tract 430.01 (29.7 percent) and Census Tract 430.06 (23.2 percent) than the levels identified for the City of Lake Elsinore (17.7 percent) and the County of Riverside (18.3 percent). Census Tract 464.04 (16.5 percent) has a similar percentage of transit-dependent population as that identified for the City and the County. Census Tract 427.15 (16.2 percent) has a lower percentage of the population that would be considered transit-dependent. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-6 Table 2.3.F: Transit Dependent Population (16 Years and Older Within a Household) Jurisdiction/Area Population (Age 16 and Over) Persons in Group Quarters Household Drivers1 Autos Available Transit- Dependent Population (%)2 Census Tract 427.15 9,509 7 9,502 7,962 16.2% Census Tract 430.01 4,257 304 3,953 2,690 29.7% Census Tract 430.06 3,484 119 3,365 2,555 23.2% Census Tract 464.04 4,109 8 4,101 3,422 16.5% City of Lake Elsinore 37,636 432 37,204 30,444 17.7% Riverside County 1,682,544 35,829 1,646,715 1,339,425 18.3% Source: United States Census Bureau. 2010. Table P12 – Sex by Age: Total Population, Table P43 – Group Quarters Population by Sex by Age by Group Quarters Type: Population in Group Quarters. Table B25046: Aggregate Number of Vehicles Available by Tenure, 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau, 2012. Adapted from Calculating/Analyzing Transit Dependent Populations Using 2010 Census Data and GIS, Todd Alan Steiss, Parsons Brinckerhoff. 1 Household Drivers = Population Age 16 and over – Persons in Group Quarters 2 Transit-Dependent Population Percentage = (Household Drivers – Autos Available)/Population (Age 16 and Over) 2.3.2.6 Community Characteristics The area surrounding the I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange is heavily urbanized with commercial and residential uses. The following provides a description of these uses. Northwest Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): Existing land uses within this quadrant include a shopping center (Shoppers Square Shopping Center) between the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and Casino Drive and numerous fast-food restaurants, hotels, and office complexes along Casino Drive. Other existing land uses within this quadrant include a Ford car dealership located between I-15 and Auto Center Drive. Numerous multifamily and single-family residences are located north of Mill Street. Northeast Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): Current land uses in this quadrant include single-family residences, neighborhood shopping centers (containing gas stations, banks, and other services for the local population), and storage compounds along Canyon Estates Drive and Summerhill Drive. Several small businesses and fast-food restaurants (e.g., In-And-Out and Kentucky Fried Chicken) are also located in this quadrant. Southwest Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): Current uses in this quadrant include two neighborhood shopping centers, an animal hospital, several fast-food restaurants, and chain restaurants along Diamond Drive Boulevard. Southeast Quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange): Existing land uses within this quadrant include townhomes and a regional shopping center (including big-box retail, grocery store, and fast food restaurants) north of Grape Street. The area surrounding the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange is less developed with lower densities and residential uses and vacant land. The following provides a description of these uses. Northwest Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): Current uses in this quadrant include vacant land and single-family residences. Northeast Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): Existing land use within this quadrant primarily consists of vacant land. There is one single-family residence located north of and adjacent to I-15. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-7 Southwest Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): Existing land uses within this quadrant consist of vacant land and single-family residences. Southeast Quadrant (I-15/Franklin Street Interchange): Currently, land within this quadrant is vacant property. 2.3.3 Environmental Consequences 2.3.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not involve construction activities; therefore, there would be no impacts to community character or cohesion under this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Temporary impacts associated with Alternative 2 may occur to existing community character and cohesion, including businesses and residences, as a result of disruptions associated with construction activities. In addition, temporary road detours and access restrictions during construction would affect residents living in the vicinity of the project census tract limits. Minor traffic delays in the project area may be encountered during construction; however, construction activities would be coordinated such that access to all properties in the project area would be maintained during construction. No detours are anticipated for this project except for temporary closures necessary for construction staging. Temporary lane reductions or closures may occur when barriers are being moved into position, when lanes are being restriped, when falsework is being installed or removed, or when the freeway is being restored to its completed condition. These temporary closures would likely be limited to nonpeak travel hours. Substantial disruptions to the local neighborhoods in the project area during construction are not anticipated and those temporary impacts would be substantially minimized by implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) as described in Section 2.7, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Temporary impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Temporary road detours and access restrictions during construction would affect residents living in the vicinity of the project census tract limits. Minor traffic delays in the project area may be encountered during construction; however, construction activities would be coordinated such that access to all properties in the project area would be maintained during construction. Substantial disruptions to the local neighborhoods in the project area during construction are not anticipated and those temporary impacts would be substantially minimized by implementation of a TMP as described in Section 2.7, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Temporary impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Temporary road detours and access restrictions during construction would affect residents living in the vicinity of the project census tract limits. Minor traffic delays in the project area may be encountered during construction; however, construction activities would be coordinated such that access to all properties in the project area would be maintained during Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-8 construction. Substantial disruptions to the local neighborhoods in the project area during construction are not anticipated and those temporary impacts would be substantially minimized by implementation of a TMP as described in Section 2.7, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. 2.3.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in physical changes to the community; therefore, no community character or cohesion impacts would occur under this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET As discussed above, indicators that a community has a high degree of cohesion are racial and ethnic homogeneity, a large number of households with two or more people, a large number of long-term residents, high rates of homeownership, and a high percentage of elderly residents. Table 2.3.G provides a summary of each of these factors and details regarding how the study area meets or does not meet each factor. Based on these factors, all of the census tracts demonstrate two indicators of community cohesion. Therefore, the study area census tracts demonstrate a moderately low community cohesion. Under Alternative 2, planned improvements associated with the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would not adversely affect community cohesion in the area as no business or residential acquisition would occur, although the acquisition of vacant parcels would occur. The area surrounding the interchange is heavily commercialized and would remain heavily commercialized with implementation of the planned improvements. Existing residential areas surrounding the existing interchange would not be divided as improvements do not extend into these areas. Improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would improve traffic operations in the area, which may indirectly improve traffic commute times for those working and residing in the area. No substantial adverse effects associated with community cohesion are anticipated with improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange under Alternative 2. For the construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of a residential unit south of the I-15 and north of existing Franklin Street, resulting in the displacement of the residents. As identified in Figure 2.3.1, the one residential unit to be acquired is located on the edge of the neighborhood. Adjacent parcels to the north, east, and west are currently vacant properties. Although this residential unit is located in a census tract that has a high potential for community cohesion, due to the large size of the census tract incorporating multiple neighborhoods, it is likely that the residents displaced could be relocated within their existing community. As identified in Figure 2.3.1, property north of I-15 and north of existing Franklin Street is vacant. There is an existing neighborhood consisting of tract homes north of I-15 and south of existing Franklin Street. In addition, there is an apartment complex south of I-15 and south of existing Franklin Street along Auto Center Drive. The construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange would not require acquisitions within these areas. These neighborhoods are already separated by existing roadways and the construction of this interchange would not change this existing condition. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-9 Table 2.3.G: Community Cohesion Factors and Summary Factor Conclusion Racial and Ethnic Homogeneity Census Tracts 427.15 and 464.04 are predominantly White (62.5% and 63.6%, respectively) while Census Tracts 430.01 and 430.06 are fairly evenly split between White and Hispanic residents. The City is predominantly White (60%) with Hispanic residents making up the bulk of the remaining population (48.0%). High Cohesion Potential? Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 Yes No No Yes Households of Two or More People The average household size for the study area census tracts is more than two people, but is lower than the average household size for the City. The household size for the County overall is greater than for the study area census tracts at 3.14 persons, with the exception of Census Tract 430.06 that exhibits an average household size of 3.22 persons. High Cohesion Potential? Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 Yes Yes Yes Yes Long-Term Residents Housing tenure for residents in Census Tract 427.15 is relatively short with 54.2% of homeowners moving into their housing units between 2000 and 2009. Additionally, 80.7% of renters within Census Tract 427.15 moved into their units between 2000 and 2009. The City overall has a relatively high proportion of long-term residents, with 54.6% and 66.2% of homeowners and renters, respectively, moving in before 2000. High Cohesion Potential? Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 No Yes Yes No High Rates of Homeownership Census Tract 427.15 has a high rate of homeownership (71.2%). The remaining three census tracts have a rate ranging from 44.2% to 69.8% of resident homeownership. Similarly, the City has a 66.0% rate of homeownership. High Cohesion Potential? Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 Yes No No No High Percentage of Elderly Residents The City and all of the study area census tracts have a relatively low percentage of residents who are over age 64 in comparison to the County’s 11.8% of the total population. While all study area census tracts have a lower percentage of elderly residents than the County, all census tracts have a higher percentage of elderly residents compared to the City. Census Tract 430.06 has the lowest percentage of elderly residents (6.2%), which is comparable to the City’s percentage (5.7%). High Cohesion Potential? Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 No No No No Transit-Dependent Population Census Tracts 430.01 and 430.06 demonstrate higher transit-dependent populations than the City or the County. However, Census Tracts 427.15 and 646.04 exhibit lower transit- dependent populations compared to the City and the County. High Cohesion Potential? Census Tract 427.15 Census Tract 430.01 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 464.04 No Yes Yes No City = City of Lake Elsinore County = County of Riverside Figure 2.3.1: Property Acquisitions for Alternatives 2 and 3 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-10 This page intentionally left blank 377272005 377271001 377244001 377260005 377272014 377340020 377340014 377340015 377243017 377243001 377250011 377260006 377260004 MAIN STREETCAMINO DEL NORTE §¨¦15 MINTHORN STREET MAIN STREETMAIN STREETProperty Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 1 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-12 This page intentionally left blank 363090003 377340021 377340009377340018 377340019 377340014 377340015 377340020 377340011 377340010 377340007 377340009§¨¦15 FUTUREFRONTAGEROAD Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 2 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-14 This page intentionally left blank 377320003 377313013 377330011 373061022373061021373064012 377273017 373072030 373064009 373071018 377330007377320001 377340011 373071002 373061023373061020373061026373061025377330010 377320010 377320009 377330005 377320008 377320007 377274016 377274026 377274028 377340021 377273011 377340010 377340018 377340019 373061024377340020 377330007 377330007 §¨¦15 FRANKLIN STREET FUTUREFRONTAGEROAD FLINT STREET HILL STREETGRANITE STREETADOBE STREETRUPARD STREETRANCHO STREETFUTUREFRONTAGEROAD F U T U R E F R O N T A G E R O A D FLINT STREET Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 3 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-16 This page intentionally left blank 373072019373072018373072028 373072029 377330011 373072022 373072011373064012 363331017373072030 373064009 373072014 373071018 377340011 373073009373073010373072015373073011 373073012 373073014373072016373072017373072006373072005373072020373072004373072023 373072021 373071002 363540002 363540001 363540003363090011 363540008 377330006 377330005 377340009377340010 377340007 377330007 363090011 363090003 §¨¦15FRANKLIN STREET GR UNDER STREET FUTUREFRONTAGEROAD F U T U R E F R O N T A G E R O A D NEW FRANKLIN STREETEXISTING FRANKLIN STREETC A N Y O N V I E W D R I V E F U T U R E F R O NTA GE ROAD Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 4 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-18 This page intentionally left blank 373072019373072018373073017373073018373073019363540009 373072028 373072029 377330011 373081019 373072022373061022373061021 373072011373073020373071013373064002 373064012 373081023 373081002373072009373072030 373064009 373082056373072014 373071018 373081020 373081021 373081022 373081024 373082057 373082055373082054373082053373081025373081001 373072012 373073016 373072010373072013 373073003 373071016373071015373071014373071012373073009373073010373072015373073011 373073012 373073014373072016373072017373072006373072005373072020373072004373072023373062035373072021373064013 373071002 373061023373061020373061026373061025363540002 363540001 363540017 363112031 363540008 363540024 377330010 373082005373082006373082007373082008373082009373082010373082011 373082012373082013373082014 373082015 373082017 373082018 373082019 373082020 373082021373082022 373083021 373083019 373083020 373081018 373081017 373081016 373081015373061024377330007 363090011 363540008 §¨¦15FRANKLIN STREET GR UNDER STREET BANCROFT WAY AUTO CENTER DRIVE F U T U R E F R O N T A G E R O A D F U T U R E F R O NTA GE ROAD AVENUE 6E X IS T IN G F R A N K L IN S T R E E T Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 5 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-20 This page intentionally left blank 373073017373073018373073019363540009 363115036 373081019373072011 373073020373071013363112026 373081023 373081002373072009 373082056373072014 373081020 373081021 373081022 373081024 373082057 373082055373082054373082053373081025373081001 373072012 373073016 373072010373072013 373073003 373071016373071015373071014373071012373073009 363112025 363540017 363540022 363550003 363550001 363115031 363115037 363112031 363550002 363540024 373082005373082006373082007373082008373082009373082010373082011 373082012373082013373082014 373082015 373082017 373082018 373082019 373082020 373082021373082022 373082023373083018 373083021 373083019 373083020 373081018 373081017 373081016 373081015363540008 §¨¦15 BANCROFT WAY AUTO CENTER DRIVE CANYON ESTATES DRIVE AUTO CENTER DRIVEAVENUE 6E X IS T IN G F R A N K L IN S T R E E T CANYON ESTATES DRIVE Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 6 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-22 This page intentionally left blank 363140044363140043363140091 363670015 363263016 363670011363550004 363550003 363670014 363550001 363670013 363115037 363550002 363140090 §¨¦15 CANYON ESTATES DRIVE CANYONESTATESDRIVE SUMMERHILLDRIVEAUTO CENTER DRIVE RAILROAD CANYON ROADRAILROADCANYONROAD CANYON ESTATES DRIVE Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 7 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-24 This page intentionally left blank 363130059 363140069 363172005 363171004 363140085 363140044363140043363140094 363530003 363530007 363530012 363530008 363150001 363150025 363140080 363140091 363670015 363171003 363530005 363670011363550004 363530004363140089 363550003 363171008 363130086 363130042 363130021 363171005 363140093 363130044 363530006 363130019 363140090 363150002 363140088 §¨¦15 AUTO CENTER DRIVE AUTO CENTER DRIVE LAKESHORE DRIVE DIAMOND DRIVECASINO DRIVE G R A P E S T R E E T RAILROAD CANYON ROADRAILROADCANYONROAD AUTO CENTER DRIVE LAKESHOREDRIVE Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 8 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-26 This page intentionally left blank 363150040 363171021363171006363171007363172018 363172005 363172014 363172013 363172017 363172015 363172016 363172012 363172004 363171018 363171017 363171016 363530012 363530008 363150001 363171019 363150006 363150025 363531057 363150005 363530019 363171022 363171020 363171012 363171011 363171010 363531089 363171024 363171023 363530027 363171008 363130044 363150004 363530011 363150002 363171013 363171014 GRAP E S T RE E T G R A P E S T R E ET MI SSI ON TRAI LDIAMOND DRIVE§¨¦15 CASINO DRIVE 363150038LAKESHOREDRIVE Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 9 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-28 This page intentionally left blank 365071009 365040011 365040003 365072011 365072001 365071008 365071006 3 6 5 0 5 3 0 1 4 365071005 3 6 5 0 5 3 0 1 3365053012365053011 365071004 365071003365053010 365071002 365040016 365040014 363171020 GRAP E S T RE E T C ASIN O D RIVE M A L A G A R O A D MI SSI ON TRAI LM A L A G A R O A D §¨¦15 Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 10 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-30 This page intentionally left blank 3 6 5 0 8 2 0 2 1 365072014 365072006 365081010 365082008365082009365082024 3 6 5 0 8 2 0 2 2 365072007 365072012 §¨¦15 E LB E R TA R O A DLAKEVIEW TERRACEG R A P E S T R E E T MI SSI ON T RAI L Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Tem porary Construction Eas ement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavem ent Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignm ent Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Acces s Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Cons truction Easement Index M ap SHEET 11 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-32 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-33 Construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange would increase accessibility in the area, which may indirectly improve traffic commute times for those working and residing in the area as travelers would no longer have to drive to Railroad Canyon Road or Main Street to get onto I-15. Although the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange would contribute to the eventual urbanization of the area, this eventual change in land use has been identified in the City’s General Plan. No substantial adverse effects associated with community cohesion are anticipated with construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange under Alternative 2. Therefore, no adverse impacts to community cohesion would occur with this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Under Alternative 3, two businesses (Pizza Hut and Sizzler) would be displaced by the proposed improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange. Due to the current fragmented nature of this cluster of commercial properties (due to other land uses interspersed with the properties), these business acquisitions would not divide an existing neighborhood or fragment the edge of a cohesive group of people. The area surrounding the interchange is heavily commercialized and would remain heavily commercialized with implementation of the proposed improvements. Existing residential areas surrounding the existing interchange would not be divided as improvements do not extend into these areas. Improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would improve traffic operations in the area, which may indirectly improve traffic commute times for those working and residing in the area. No substantial adverse effects associated with community cohesion are anticipated with improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange under Alternative 3. As identified for Alternative 2, for the construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, Alternative 3 would also require the acquisition of the same residential unit south of the I-15 and north of existing Franklin Street, resulting in the displacement of those residents. Effects associated with the construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2 as the same residential unit would be displaced under either alternative. No substantial adverse effects associated with community cohesion are anticipated with construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange under Alternative 3. Therefore, no adverse impacts to community cohesion would occur with this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Under Alternative 4, the proposed improvements associated with the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would not result in the displacement of businesses; however, partial acquisition of business properties and vacant land would occur. The area surrounding the interchange is heavily commercialized and would remain heavily commercialized with implementation of the proposed improvements. With no displacement of businesses, the proposed improvements of Alternative 4 would not result in obstructions or barriers that could disrupt the cohesion or character of the community. Existing residential areas surrounding the existing interchange would not be divided as improvements do not extend into these areas. Improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange would improve traffic operations in the area, which may indirectly improve traffic commute times for those working and residing in the area. No substantial adverse effects associated with community cohesion are anticipated with improvements made to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange under Alternative 4. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-34 For the construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, Alternative 4 would require the acquisition of one residential parcel. As noted above, due to the large size of the census tract incorporating multiple neighborhoods, it is likely that the occupants of the single residence displaced could be relocated within their existing community. As identified in Figure 2.3.2, property north of I-15 and north of existing Franklin Street is vacant. There is an existing neighborhood consisting of tract homes north of I-15 and south of existing Franklin Street. In addition, there is an apartment complex south of I-15 and south of existing Franklin Street along Auto Center Drive. The construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange would not require acquisitions within these areas. These neighborhoods are already separated by existing roadways and the construction of this interchange would not change this existing condition. Construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange would increase accessibility in the area, which may indirectly improve traffic commute times for those working and residing in the area as travelers would no longer have to drive to Railroad Canyon Road or Main Street to get onto I-15. Although the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange would contribute to the eventual urbanization of the area, this eventual change in land use has been identified in the City’s General Plan. No substantial adverse effects associated with community cohesion are anticipated with construction of the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange under Alternative 4. Therefore, no adverse impacts to community cohesion would occur with this alternative. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: X. a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with the existing I-15 freeway facility, ramps, and access roads. Surrounding land uses in the vicinity of Railroad Canyon Road consist of medium-density residential, general commercial, tourist commercial, commercial mixed-use, and specific plan land uses. Surrounding land uses in the vicinity of Franklin Street consist of medium-density residential, mountainous residential, mixed-use, freeway business, general commercial, and specific plan land uses. Many parcels surrounding the project site to the east and west are mass graded for a residential development; however, this residential development was never completed and the property is still vacant. The mix of urban uses and undeveloped land within the surrounding area does not constitute an established neighborhood. Therefore, the site would not be located within or divide an existing neighborhood. In contrast, the division of an established community usually results from the construction of a new feature such as a highway or railroad tracks or removal of access to a community. In addition, the project is an enhancement to the existing facility. The existing I-15 freeway facility would still operate with implementation of this change of operations. Since the project would still result in the continuation of existing activities on the project site and since no division of community would occur, no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. 2.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Implementation of a TMP (discussed in further detail in Section 2.7, Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities) would minimize temporary construction-related impacts of Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 related to community character and cohesion. In addition, there are adequate replacement housing and business properties in the area; refer to Section 2.4 (Relocation and Property Acquisition) for a discussion and data regarding available properties. 3772720 0 5 3772710 0 1 3772440 0 1 377260005 37727201 4 377340020 377340014 377340015 37724301 7 377243001 377250011 377260006 377260004 MAIN STREETCA M I N O D E L N O R T E §¨¦15 MI N T H O R N S T R E E T MAIN STREETMAIN STREETProperty Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 1 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-36 This page intentionally left blank 363090003 377340021 377340009377340018 377340019 377340014 377340015 377340020 377340011 377340010 377340007 377340009§¨¦15 FUTUREFRONTAGEROAD Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 2 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-38 This page intentionally left blank 377320003 377313013 377 3 3 0 0 1 1 373061022373061021373064012 377273017 373072030 373064009 373071018 377330007377320001 377340011 373071002 373061023373061020373061026373061025377330010 377320010 377320009 377330005 377320008 377320007 377274016 37727402 6 377274028 377340021 37727301 1 377340010 377340018 377340019 373061024377340020 377330007 377330007 §¨¦15 FR A N K L I N S T R E E T FUTUREFRONTAGEROAD FLINT ST R E E T HILL STREETGRANITE STREETADOBE STREETRUPARD STREETRANCHO STREETFUTUREFRONTAGEROAD F U T U R E F R O N T A G E R O A D FLINT ST R E E T Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 3 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-40 This page intentionally left blank 3730720193730720183730 7 2 0 2 8 37 3 0 7 2 0 2 9 377 3 3 0 0 1 1 373072022 373072011373064012 363331017373072030 373064009 373072014 373071018 377340011 373073009373073010373072015373073011 373073012 373073014373072016373072017373072006373072005373072020373072004373072023 373072021 373071002 363540002 363540001 363540003363090011 363540008 377330006 377330005 377340009377340010 377340007 377330007 363090011 363090003 §¨¦15FR A N K L I N S T R E E T GRUNDER STREET FUTUREFRONTAGEROAD F U T U R E F R O N T A G E R O A D NEW FRANKLIN STREETEXISTING FRANKLIN STREETC A N Y O N V I E W D R I V E F U T U R E F R O NTA GE ROAD Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 4 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-42 This page intentionally left blank 373072019373072018373073017373073018373073019363540009 3730 7 2 0 2 8 37 3 0 7 2 0 2 9 377 3 3 0 0 1 1 373081019 373072022373061022373061021 373072011373073020373071013373064002 373064012 373081023 373081002373072009373072030 373064009 373082056373072014 373071018 373081020 373081021 373081022 373081024 373082057 373082055373082054373082053373081025373081001 373072012 373073016 373072010373072013 373073003 373071016373071015373071014373071012373073009373073010373072015373073011 373073012 373073014373072016373072017373072006373072005373072020373072004373072023373062035373072021373064013 373071002 373061023373061020373061026373061025363540002 363540001 363540017 36 3 1 1 2 0 3 1 363540008 36 3 5 4 0 0 2 4 377330010 373082005373082006373082007373082008373082009373082010373082011 373082012373082013373082014 373082015 373082017 373082018 373082019 373082020 373082021373082022 373083021 373083019 373083020 373081018 373081017 373081016 373081015373061024377330007 363090011 363540008 §¨¦15FR A N K L I N S T R E E T GRUNDER STREET BANCROFT WAY AU T O C E N T E R D R I V E F U T U R E F R O N T A G E R O A D F U T U R E F R O NTAGE ROAD AVENUE 6EXISTING F R A N K LI N S T R E E T Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 5 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-44 This page intentionally left blank 373073017373073018373073019363540009 36 3 1 1 5 0 3 6 373081019373072011 373073020373071013363112026 373081023 373081002373072009 373082056373072014 373081020 373081021 373081022 373081024 373082057 373082055373082054373082053373081025373081001 373072012 373073016 373072010373072013 373073003 373071016373071015373071014373071012373073009 363112025 363540017 363540022 363550003 363550001 363115031 36 3 1 1 5 0 3 7 36 3 1 1 2 0 3 1 363550002 36 3 5 4 0 0 2 4 373082005373082006373082007373082008373082009373082010373082011 373082012373082013373082014 373082015 373082017 373082018 373082019 373082020 373082021373082022 373082023373083018 373083021 373083019 373083020 373081018 373081017 373081016 373081015363540008 §¨¦15 BANCROFT WAY AU T O C E N T E R D R I V E CANY O N E S T A T E S D R I V E AU T O C E N T E R D R I V EAVENUE 6EXISTING F R A N K LI N S T R E E T CANYO N E S T A T E S D R I V E Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 6 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-46 This page intentionally left blank 363140044363140043363140091 363670015 363263016 363670011363550004 363550003 363670014 363550001 363670013 36 3 1 1 5 0 3 7 363550002 363140090 §¨¦15 CANY O N E S T A T E S D R I V E CANYONESTATESDRIVE SUMMERHILLDRIVEAU T O C E N T E R D R I V E RAIL R O A D C A N Y O N R O A DRAILROADCANYONROAD CANYO N E S T A T E S D R I V E Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 7 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-48 This page intentionally left blank 363130059 363140069 363172005 363171004 363140085 363140044363140043363140094 363530003 363530007 363530012 363530008 363150001 363150025 363140080 363140091 363670015 363171003 363530005 363670011363550004 363530004363140089 363550003 363171008 363130086 363130042 363130021 363171005 363140093 363130044 363530006 363130019 363140090 363150002 363140088 §¨¦15 AUTO C E N T E R D R I V E AU T O C E N T E R D R I V E LAKESHORE DR I V E DIAMOND DRIVECA S I N O D R I V E G R A P E S T R E E T RAIL R O A D C A N Y O N R O A DRAILROADCANYONROAD AU T O C E N T E R D R I V E LAKESHOREDRIVE Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 8 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-50 This page intentionally left blank 363150040 36317102136317100636317100736 3 1 7 2 0 1 8 363172005 363172014 36 3 1 7 2 0 1 3 363172017 363172015 363172016 36 3 1 7 2 0 1 2 36 3 1 7 2 0 0 4 363171018 363171017 363171016 363530012 363530008 363150001 363171019 363150006 363150025 363531057 363150005 363530019 363171022 363171020 363171012 363171011 363171010 363531089 363171024 363171023 363530027 363171008 363130044 363150004 363530011 363150002 363171013 363171014 GRAP E S TR E E T G R A P E S T R E E T MISS ION TRA ILDIAMOND DRIVE§¨¦15 CA S I N O D R I V E 363150038LAKESHOREDRIVE Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 9 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-52 This page intentionally left blank 365071009 365040011 365040003 365072011 365072001 365071008 365071006 365053014 365071005 365053013 365053012 365053011 365071004 365071003365053010 365071002 365040016 36 5 0 4 0 0 1 4 363171020 GRAP E S TR E E T C A S I N O D R I V E MALAGA R O A D MISS ION TRA IL MALAGA R O A D §¨¦15 Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 10 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-54 This page intentionally left blank 3 6 5 0 8 2 0 2 1 365072014 365072006 365081010 365082008365082009365082024 3 6 5 0 8 2 0 2 2 365072007 365072012 §¨¦15 ELBERTA R O A DLAKEVIEW TERRACEG R A P E S T R E E T MISS ION TRA I L Property Acquisitions Map for Alternatives 2 and 3SOURCE: Google Earth, 2013;SC Engineering, 2014; RiversideCounty Parcel Data, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-3-1_Prop_Aquisitions_Mapbook_Alts2-3.mxd (11/15/2016) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.3.1 0 100 200 Feet S!!N ¦§¨¦15 5 9 6 1 3 4 2 7 8 11 10 Project Footprint Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 Proposed ROW, Alternative 2 & 3 Proposed ROW, Alternative 3 Proposed ROW, Franklin Existing CalTrans ROW Existing Local ROW Proposed Temporary Construction Easement Alt 3 Pavement Edges Franklin Pavement Edges Freeway Pavement Edges Temporary Road Alt 2 Pavement Edges Alt 2 Alignment Soundwalls Parcel Boundaries Impacted Parcels Access Control Only Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition Partial/Full - Alt 3 Only Partial Acquisition with TemporaryConstruction Easement Temporary Construction Easement Index Map SHEET 11 OF 11 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.3-56 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-1 2.4 Relocation and Property Acquisition 2.4.1 Regulatory Setting Caltrans Relocation Assistance Program (RAP) is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. The purpose of RAP is to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such persons would not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Please see Appendix D for a summary of the RAP. All relocation services and benefits are administered without regard to race, color, national origin, or sex in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 United States Code [USC] 2000d, et seq.). Please see Appendix C for a copy of Caltrans’ Title VI Policy Statement. 2.4.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the information regarding relocations and relocation impacts from the following reports prepared for this project: Community Impact Assessment (December 2010) Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2012) Second Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2015) Third Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (February 2015) Relocation Impact Memorandum (RIM) (April 2010) Relocation Impact Memorandum (January 2015) The study area for the assessment of relocation impacts includes the City of Lake Elsinore, Census Tract 427.15, Census Tract 430.01, Census Tract 430.06, and Census Tract 464.04. This study area was selected because it covers the entire segment of the project and includes areas likely to be considered for the relocation of displaced residential and nonresidential uses. Land uses in the project area include single-family and multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and vacant land. 2.4.3 Environmental Consequences 2.4.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would require no temporary construction easements (TCEs) and therefore, would not result in temporary impacts related to relocations. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET As identified in Table 2.4.A, construction of Alternative 2 would require 75 TCEs in the vicinity of the Franklin Street interchange and none within the vicinity of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, totaling an area of 491,203 square feet (sf). TCEs are temporary easements on which construction vehicle access and staging of construction materials would occur. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-2 Table 2.4.A: Properties Impacted by Temporary Construction Easements APN Land Use Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange 363-130-044 McDonalds ‐‐ ‐‐ 391 sf 363-140-085 Commercial Parking ‐‐ ‐‐ 2,149 sf 363-140-088 Carl's Jr ‐‐ ‐‐ 194 sf 363-140-089 Retail Center ‐‐ ‐‐ 290 sf 363-140-090 In-n-Out ‐‐ ‐‐ 1,842 sf 363-140-091 Commercial Parking ‐‐ ‐‐ 1,484 sf 363-140-093 76 Service Station ‐‐ ‐‐ 580 sf 363-150-005 Veterinarian Hospital ‐‐ ‐‐ 782 sf 363-150-040 Walgreens ‐‐ ‐‐ 647 sf 363-171-003 Tire Shop ‐‐ ‐‐ 308 sf 363-171-004 Arco Service Station ‐‐ ‐‐ 1,553 sf 363-172-005 Mobil Service Station ‐‐ ‐‐ 1,203 sf 363-530-005 Landscape Area ‐‐ ‐‐ 605 sf I-15/Franklin Street Interchange 363-090-003 Vacant 8,210 sf 8,210 sf 8,210 sf 363-090-011 Vacant 37,230 sf 37,230 sf 37,230 sf 363-540-001 Vacant 23,550 sf 23,550 sf 23,550 sf 363-540-002 Vacant 31,201 sf 31,201 sf 31,201 sf 363-540-009 Vacant 1,360 sf 1,360 sf 1,360 sf 373-064-009 Vacant 1,940 sf 1,940 sf 1,940 sf 373-064-012 Vacant 1,090 sf 1,090 sf 1,090 sf 373-071-002 Vacant 4,760 sf 4,760 sf 4,760 sf 373-071-015 Vacant 235 sf 235 sf 235 sf 373-071-016 Vacant 2,495 sf 2,495 sf 2,495 sf 373-071-018 Vacant 33,500 sf 33,500 sf 33,500 sf 373-072-009 Vacant 1,190 sf 1,190 sf 1,190 sf 373-072-010 Vacant 1,125 sf 1,125 sf 1,125 sf 373-072-011 Vacant 2,840 sf 2,840 sf 2,840 sf 373-072-017 Vacant 2,980 sf 2,980 sf 2,980 sf 373-072-030 Vacant 3,690 sf 3,690 sf 3,690 sf 373-073-016 Vacant 1,475 sf 1,475 sf 1,475 sf 373-073-017 Vacant 1,175 sf 1,175 sf 1,175 sf 373-073-018 Vacant 580 sf 580 sf 580 sf 373-081-001 Vacant 2,915 sf 2,915 sf 2,915 sf 373-081-002 Vacant 580 sf 580 sf 580 sf 373-081-015 Vacant 3,232 sf 3,232 sf 3,232 sf 373-081-016 Vacant 1,434 sf 1,434 sf 1,434 sf 373-081-017 Vacant 1,644 sf 1,644 sf 1,644 sf 373-081-018 Vacant 2,270 sf 2,270 sf 2,270 sf 373-081-019 Vacant 2,756 sf 2,756 sf 2,756 sf 373-081-020 Vacant 2,978 sf 2,978 sf 2,978 sf 373-081-021 Vacant 3,341 sf 3,341 sf 3,341 sf 373-081-022 Vacant 3,715 sf 3,715 sf 3,715 sf 373-081-023 Vacant 4,090 sf 4,090 sf 4,090 sf 373-081-024 Vacant 5,160 sf 5,160 sf 5,160 sf 373-081-025 Vacant 3,870 sf 3,870 sf 3,870 sf 373-082-005 Vacant 830 sf 830 sf 830 sf 373-082-006 Vacant 791 sf 791 sf 791 sf 373-082-007 Vacant 752 sf 752 sf 752 sf 373-082-008 Vacant 713 sf 713 sf 713 sf 373-082-009 Vacant 673 sf 673 sf 673 sf 373-082-010 Vacant 634 sf 634 sf 634 sf 373-082-011 Vacant 559 sf 559 sf 559 sf 373-082-012 Vacant 524 sf 524 sf 524 sf 373-082-013 Vacant 584 sf 584 sf 584 sf 373-082-014 Vacant 590 sf 590 sf 590 sf Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-3 Table 2.4.A: Properties Impacted by Temporary Construction Easements APN Land Use Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 373-082-015 Vacant 529 sf 529 sf 529 sf 373-082-017 Vacant 575 sf 575 sf 575 sf 373-082-018 Vacant 479 sf 479 sf 479 sf 373-082-019 Vacant 399 sf 399 sf 399 sf 373-082-020 Vacant 227 sf 227 sf 227 sf 373-082-021 Vacant 54 sf 54 sf 54 sf 373-082-022 Vacant 10 sf 10 sf 10 sf 373-082-053 Vacant 2,335 sf 2,335 sf 2,335 sf 373-082-055 Vacant 605 sf 605 sf 605 sf 373-082-056 Vacant 1,660 sf 1,660 sf 1,660 sf 373-082-057 Vacant 1,220 sf 1,220 sf 1,220 sf 373-083-018 Vacant 421 sf 421 sf 421 sf 373-083-019 Vacant 573 sf 573 sf 573 sf 373-083-020 Vacant 789 sf 789 sf 789 sf 373-083-021 Vacant 965 sf 965 sf 965 sf 377-260-005 Vacant 1,825 sf 1,825 sf 1,825 sf 377-320-005 Vacant 14,600 sf 14,600 sf 14,600 sf 377-320-006 Vacant 15,190 sf 15,190 sf 15,190 sf 377-320-007 Vacant 235 sf 235 sf 235 sf 377-330-005 Vacant 25,055 sf 25,055 sf 25,055 sf 377-330-006 Vacant 15,575 sf 15,575 sf 15,575 sf 377-330-007 Vacant 75,435 sf 75,435 sf 75,435 sf 377-330-010 Vacant 1,375 sf 1,375 sf 1,375 sf 377-340-007 Vacant 1,378 sf 1,378 sf 1,378 sf 377-340-009 Vacant 203 sf 203 sf 203 sf 377-340-010 Vacant 11,240 sf 11,240 sf 11,240 sf 377-340-011 Vacant 13,405 sf 13,405 sf 13,405 sf 377-340-014 Vacant 35,995 sf 35,995 sf 35,995 sf 377-340-015 Vacant 18,300 sf 18,300 sf 18,300 sf 377-340-018 Vacant 13,935 sf 13,935 sf 13,935 sf 377-340-019 Vacant 9,535 sf 9,535 sf 9,535 sf 377-340-020 Single-family Residential 6,245 sf 6,245 sf 6,245 sf 377-340-021 Vacant 15,575 sf 15,575 sf 15,575 sf Source: Riverside County Parcel Data (December 2014). -- = not applicable APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number I-15 = Interstate sf = square feet After construction, TCEs would be restored to their original condition and returned to their original owners. TCEs would not require the relocation of residents, businesses, or employees and TCE parcel owners would be compensated for temporary use of their property during construction. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE As identified in Table 2.4.A, construction of Alternative 3 would require 75 TCEs in the vicinity of the Franklin Street interchange and none within the vicinity of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, totaling an area of 491,203 sf. As noted above for Alternative 2, TCEs under Alternative 3 would not require the relocation of residents, businesses, or employees and TCE parcel owners would be compensated for temporary use of their property during construction. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-4 ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE As identified in Table 2.4.A, construction of Alternative 4 would require 18 TCEs, totaling an area of 21,984 sf. These 18 TCEs are located in the vicinity of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would require 75 TCEs in the vicinity of the Franklin Street interchange, totaling an area of 491,203 sf. As noted for Alternatives 2 and 3 above, TCEs under Alternative 4 would not require the relocation of residents, businesses, or employees and TCE parcel owners would be compensated for temporary use of their property during construction. 2.4.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would require no residential or commercial displacements or partial acquisitions. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in permanent impacts related to relocations. However, under the No Build Alternative, there could be some reduction in the tax base if increased congestion and poor access discourage consumers from patronizing businesses in the project area. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the acquisition of privately owned property, which includes residential land uses. Table 2.4.B summarizes the anticipated partial and full acquisitions under Alternative 2. Table 2.4.B: Summary of Property Acquisitions for Build Alternative 2 Permanent Acquisitions Temporary Construction Easements Number of Full Parcels Total Square Footage Number of Partial Parcels Total Square Footage Number of Parcels Total Square Footage Total: 12 Residential: 12 Commercial: 0 184,276 Total: 57 Residential: 39 Commercial: 18 798,787 75 491,203 Source: Riverside County Parcel Data (December 2014). Note: The construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange would occur under all Build Alternatives. I-15 = Interstate 15 As identified in Table 2.4.B, Alternative 2 would require the partial acquisition of 57 parcels (39 residentially zoned parcels and 18 commercially zoned parcels), totaling 798,787 sf. Alternative 2 would also require the full acquisition of 12 residentially zoned parcels totaling 184,276 sf. Tables 2.4.C and 2.4.D provides a list of full and partial acquisitions, respectively, required for Alternative 2. Previously referenced Figure 2.3.1 illustrates these property acquisitions for Alternative 2. The full right-of-way acquisitions identified for the project are based on conceptual design. The actual right-of-way (full and partial acquisitions) for the project would be refined and defined during final design. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-5 Table 2.4.C: Properties Impacted by Partial Acquisitions APN Land Use Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange 363-130-044 McDonalds -- -- 1,041 sf 363-140-085 Commercial Parking -- -- 2,852 sf 363-140-088 Carl’s Jr. 1,760 sf -- 268 sf 363-140-089 Shopping Center 205 sf -- 642 sf 363-140-090 In N Out 1,410 sf 1,410 sf 4,592 sf 363-140-091 Commercial Parking -- -- 2,295 sf 363-140-093 76 Service Station -- -- 2,842 sf 363-150-005 Veterinarian Hospital -- -- 691 sf 363-150-040 Walgreens -- -- 908 sf 363-171-003 Tire Shop -- -- 724 sf 363-171-004 Arco Service Station -- -- 346 sf 363-171-008 Sizzlers -- 47,695 sf -- 363-171-010 Pizza Hut -- 20,410 sf -- 363-171-011 Parking Area -- 1,770 sf -- 363-171-012 Parking Area -- 3,615 363-171-022 Shopping Area -- 3,190 sf -- 363-171-023 Rancho Physical Therapy -- 1,910 sf -- 363-171-024 Karate Studio -- 1,435 sf -- 363-172-005 Mobil Service Station -- -- 926 sf I-15/Franklin Street Interchange 363-090-003 Vacant 31,965 sf 31,965 sf 31,965 sf 363-090-011 Vacant 51,565 sf 51,565 sf 51,565 sf 363-540-001 Vacant 34,765 sf 34,765 sf 34,765 sf 363-540-002 Vacant 43,970 sf 43,970 sf 43,970 sf 363-540-008 Vacant 49,154 sf 49,154 sf 49,154 sf 363-540-009 Vacant 1,356 sf 1,356 sf 1,356 sf 373-061-020 Roadway – Franklin Street 1,894 sf 1,894 sf 1,894 sf 373-061-021 Roadway – Franklin Street 1,907 sf 1,907 sf 1,907 sf 373-061-022 Roadway – Franklin Street 3,678 sf 3,678 sf 3,678 sf 373-061-024 Roadway – Franklin Street 138 sf 138 sf 138 sf 373-061-025 Roadway – Franklin Street 961 sf 961 sf 961 sf 373-061-026 Roadway – Franklin Street 2,566 sf 2,566 sf 2,566 sf 373-064-009 Vacant 565 sf 565 sf 565 sf 373-071-002 Vacant 7,515 sf 7,515 sf 7,515 sf 373-071-013 Vacant 785 sf 785 sf 785 sf 373-071-014 Vacant 2,630 sf 2,630 sf 2,630 sf 373-071-015 Vacant 5,025 sf 5,025 sf 5,025 sf 373-071-016 Vacant 3,930 sf 3,930 sf 3,930 sf 373-071-018 Vacant 47,650 sf 47,650 sf 47,650 sf 373-072-009 Vacant 2,880 sf 2,880 sf 2,880 sf 373-072-010 Vacant 2,095 sf 2,095 sf 2,095 sf 373-072-011 Vacant 2,105 sf 2,105 sf 2,105 sf 373-072-022 Vacant 4,820 sf 4,820 sf 4,820 sf 373-072-030 Vacant 131,165 sf 131,165 sf 131,165 sf 373-073-009 Vacant 1,450 sf 1,450 sf 1,450 sf 373-073-010 Vacant 1,535 sf 1,535 sf 1,535 sf 373-073-011 Vacant 1,782 sf 1,782 sf 1,782 sf 373-073-012 Vacant 1,946 sf 1,946 sf 1,946 sf 373-081-025 Vacant 2,175 sf 2,175 sf 2,175 sf 373-082-053 Vacant 845 sf 845 sf 845 sf 373-082-054 Vacant 440 sf 440 sf 440 sf 373-082-055 Vacant 430 sf 430 sf 430 sf 373-082-056 Vacant 430 sf 430 sf 430 sf 373-082-057 Vacant 775 sf 775 sf 775 sf 377-320-005 Vacant 11,865 sf 11,865 sf 11,865 sf 377-320-006 Vacant 9,545 sf 9,545 sf 9,545 sf 377-330-005 Vacant 12,690 sf 12,690 sf 12,690 sf Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-6 Table 2.4.C: Properties Impacted by Partial Acquisitions APN Land Use Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 377-330-006 Vacant 101,925 sf 101,925 sf 101,925 sf 377-330-007 Vacant 49,455 sf 49,455 sf 49,455 sf 377-330-010 Vacant 3,475 sf 3,475 sf 3,475 sf 377-340-007 Vacant 1,349 sf 1,349 sf 1,349 sf 377-340-009 Vacant 442 sf 442 sf 442 sf 377-340-010 Vacant 25,625 sf 25,625 sf 25,625 sf 377-340-011 Vacant 30,730 sf 30,730 sf 30,730 sf 377-340-014 Vacant 10,370 sf 10,370 sf 10,370 sf 377-340-015 Vacant 17,870 sf 17,870 sf 17,870 sf 377-340-018 Vacant 17,320 sf 17,320 sf 17,320 sf 377-340-019 Vacant 11,030 sf 11,030 sf 11,030 sf 377-340-020 Single-family Residential 11,880 sf 11,880 sf 11,880 sf 377-340-021 Vacant 15,350 sf 15,350 sf 15,350 sf Source: Riverside County Parcel Data (December 2014). -- = not applicable APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number I-15 = Interstate 15 sf = square feet Table 2.4.D: Properties Impacted by Full Acquisitions APN Land Use Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange 363-130-077 Caltrans 1,307 sf 363-150-002 Vacant -- -- 47 sf 363-150-004 Vacant -- -- 209 sf 363-150-025 Vacant -- -- 264 sf 363-171-012 Parking Area -- 3,615 sf -- I-15/Franklin Street Interchange 373-061-023 Roadway – Franklin Street 1,200 sf 1,200 sf 1,200 sf 373-072-012 Vacant 5,663 sf 5,663 sf 5,663 sf 373-072-013 Vacant 4,792 sf 4,792 sf 4,792 sf 373-072-014 Vacant 4,000 sf 4,000 sf 4,000 sf 373-072-015 Vacant 3,667 sf 3,667 sf 3,667 sf 373-072-016 Vacant 4,792 sf 4,792 sf 4,792 sf 373-072-021 Vacant 1,235 sf 1,235 sf 1,235 sf 373-072-029 Vacant 63,162 sf 63,162 sf 63,162 sf 373-073-020 Vacant 4,625 sf 4,625 sf 4,625 sf 377-320-008 Single-family Residential 57,064 sf 57,064 sf 57,064 sf 377-330-011 Vacant 33,541 sf 33,541 sf 33,541 sf 373-061-023 Roadway – Franklin Street 1,200 sf 1,200 sf 1,200 sf Source: Riverside County Parcel Data (December 2014). -- = not applicable APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number I-15 = Interstate 15 sf = square feet Alternative 2 would displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. A total of 3–4 residents would be displaced as a result of the acquisition of this residential unit. Finding replacement dwellings in the City of Lake Elsinore for residents displaced by Alternative 2 would be dependent in part on the overall demand for housing in the Inland Empire. As identified in the Relocation Impact Memorandum (January 2015), there were approximately 699 homes for sale or rent in the City of Lake Elsinore as of December, 2014. It is not anticipated that temporary housing and/or Last Resort Housing would be required for the project; however, they would be used in the event that Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-7 relocating displaced residents require those benefits. This has been incorporated as Measure REL-1. Alternative 2 would not result in any business displacements. Therefore, no employees would be displaced under this alternative. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the loss of parking spaces for area businesses. Under Build Alternative 2, a total of 15 parking spaces in the northwest quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange) would be lost due to partial acquisitions of commercial properties. The City of Lake Elsinore requires one parking space for every 250 sf of gross floor area for areas utilized for commercial uses.1 The area in which 15 parking spaces would be removed currently has two commercial buildings totaling approximately 10,600 sf in size. Based on City of Lake Elsinore parking standards, the shopping area is required to provide a minimum of 43 parking spaces.2 The shopping center currently provides 90 parking spaces for patrons to use, which is in excess of minimum City requirements. The removal of 15 parking spaces would result in approximately 75 parking spaces available for the shopping center. The remaining parking spaces would still be in excess of the amount minimally required by the City. Based on the preliminary right-of-way for Alternative 2, it is anticipated that parking lot circulation would not be affected by implementation of this alternative. The removal of parking spaces would not result in blocking public access to the property and would not increase traffic congestion within the parking lot. Construction of Alternative 2 would create secondary fiscal impacts as a result of the right-of- way acquisition and relocations. Alternative 2 would have an impact due to the removal of property from the local tax base. The acquisition of property for conversion to transportation uses would result in a loss of taxable property in the City. Property taxes are levied on the assessed value of privately owned property. Property taxes for properties within the study area are collected by the County and apportioned to the City, with the amount levied being approximately 1 percent of the assessed property value. According to the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector, approximately eight cents of every dollar in paid property taxes is distributed to the City as property tax revenue. The only parcels included in calculations for property tax loss are parcels to be fully acquired by the project. The amount of property tax paid by parcel was recorded based upon property taxes paid to the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector in 2011. The potential property tax losses for Alternative 2 total $4,313.24, which represents 0.07 percent of Lake Elsinore’s total property tax revenue ($5,537,970).3 As previously stated, Alternative 2 would not require the acquisition of any businesses. Therefore, no loss of potential sales tax would occur. Although Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of a residence, it would have positive effects because improved traffic operations may encourage businesses to relocate into the area. Property values in the project area would be expected to increase as a result of improved 1 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Chapter 17.148 Parking Requirements, revised August 24, 2010. 2 10,600 square feet of commercial uses * 1 parking space/250 square feet of commercial uses = 42.4 parking spaces required. 3 City of Lake Elsinore. FY 2013-2014. Adopted Operating Budget. Website: http://issuu.com/ cityoflakeelsinore/docs/final_adopted_budget_13-14_web_redu (accessed March 3, 2015). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-8 access, resulting in higher property tax yields. Business sales in the area would also be expected to improve due to improved access for customers, resulting in higher sales tax yields. All property acquisitions and relocations would be handled in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) of 1970 (Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894). ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the acquisition of privately owned property, including residential and commercial land and buildings. Table 2.4.E summarizes the anticipated partial and full acquisitions under Alternative 3. Table 2.4.E: Summary of Property Acquisitions for Build Alternative 3 Permanent Acquisitions Temporary Construction Easements Number of Full Parcels Total Square Footage Number of Partial Parcels Total Square Footage Number of Parcels Total Square Footage Total: 13 Residential: 12 Commercial: 1 187,891 Total: 60 Residential: 39 Commercial: 21 873,232 75 491,203 Source: Riverside County Parcel Data (December 2014). Note: The construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange would occur under all Build Alternatives. As identified in Table 2.4.E, Alternative 3 would require the partial acquisition of 60 parcels (39 residential parcels and 21 commercial parcels), totaling 873,232 sf. Alternative 3 would also require the full acquisition of 13 parcels (12 residential parcels and 1 commercial parcel) totaling 187,891 sf. Previously referenced Figure 2.3.1 illustrates the property acquisitions required for Alternative 3. The full right-of-way acquisitions identified for this alternative are based on conceptual design. The actual right-of-way (full and partial acquisitions) for the project would be refined and defined during final design. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the proposed I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. A total of 3–4 residents would be displaced as a result of the acquisition of this residential unit. Finding replacement dwellings in the City of Lake Elsinore for residents displaced by Alternative 3 would be dependent in part on the overall demand for housing in the Inland Empire. Adequate replacement properties are anticipated to exist for the project. As of December 2014, there were approximately 699 homes for sale or rent in the City of Lake Elsinore. Based on existing market conditions, there currently is adequate replacement housing for the project in the City of Lake Elsinore. The estimated real estate values described above are for a specific period of time and cannot be guaranteed beyond those dates. The actual property acquisitions and subsequent relocations for the project may not occur for some time; therefore, values at the time of acquisition are subject to variance from those reported here. It is possible that adequate relocation resources may not exist for the owners and/or tenants of the single-family residence in the project area at the time of the displacement. As a result, relocation opportunities in other cities in the County, such as Menifee, Murrieta, and Wildomar, may be used to relocate residents displaced by the project. It is not anticipated that temporary housing and/or Last Resort Housing would be required for the project; however, they would be Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-9 used in the event that relocating displaced residents require those benefits. This has been incorporated as Measure REL-1. In addition to the one residential displacement, Alternative 3 would result in two business displacements (two displacements on partial acquisitions). These displacements would be in the City of Lake Elsinore and would require the relocation of two existing businesses, a Pizza Hut (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 363-171-010) and a Sizzler (APN 363-171-008). The other structures and businesses on these parcels would not be displaced by the project. Based on current vacancy rates in the City of Lake Elsinore, it is anticipated that these displaced nonresidential uses can be relocated in the City or the immediately surrounding areas. As of December 2014, there were approximately 63 restaurant/fast food spaces/properties for lease or sale within the City of Lake Elsinore and the surrounding Cities of Menifee and Wildomar and the current commercial vacancy rate of 10.1 percent for the Inland. Relocation resources for all nonresidential uses are anticipated to be adequate in the relocation area. In addition, adjacent cities (e.g., Menifee and Wildomar) may be considered for relocations, if necessary. In the event that relocating displaced businesses requires relocation in a different City, Measure REL-1 shall be implemented. The relocation of these two businesses that would occur with implementation of Alternative 3 is anticipated to lead to a displacement of an estimated 40–98 employees. This displacement would represent 0.20–0.50 percent of the employed labor force in the City of Lake Elsinore, which is not considered to be substantial. Property taxes are levied on the assessed value of privately owned property. Property taxes for properties within the study area are collected by the county and apportioned to the City, with the amount levied being approximately 1 percent of the assessed property value. According to the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector, approximately eight cents of every dollar in paid property taxes is distributed to the City as property tax revenue. The only parcels included in calculations for property tax loss are parcels to be fully acquired by the project. The amount of property tax paid by parcel was recorded based upon property taxes paid to the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector in 2011. The potential property tax losses for Alternative 3 total $4,273.30, which represents 0.07 percent of Lake Elsinore’s total property tax revenue ($5,544,000).1 When businesses cease to operate, the State and local jurisdictions lose sales tax revenues. This analysis provides an estimate of the annual sales tax revenue losses to city, county, and state governments as a result of the nonresidential acquisitions that would occur from the project. The sales tax rate within the County and the City of Lake Elsinore is 8.0 percent, of which 1.0 percent is distributed to the local jurisdiction (City of Lake Elsinore). In the Taxable Sales in California (Sales and Use Tax) Report, the State Board tabulates sales tax revenues by business and jurisdictions on a quarterly basis. Due to privacy laws, the Board does not disclose sales tax revenues generated by individual businesses. The taxable sales for the businesses to be impacted by the project could not be obtained. The potential loss in sales tax revenue was estimated using total taxable sales within the County and the City of Lake Elsinore. 1 City of Lake Elsinore. FY 2013-2014. Adopted Operating Budget. Website: http://issuu.com/ cityoflakeelsinore/docs/final_adopted_budget_13-14_web_redu (accessed March 3, 2015). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-10 The acquisitions associated with Alternative 3 would cause two sales tax-generating businesses to be relocated (Pizza Hut and Sizzler). In the event that all businesses from the City relocate within the same City boundary, there would be no loss of sales tax revenue to each city. However, relocation outside a particular city would result in a net loss of sales tax revenue to that city. The potential annual sales tax revenue loss for Alternative 3 is shown in Table 2.4.F. Table 2.4.F: Potential Annual Sales Tax Revenue Loss for Alternative 3 Jurisdiction Tax Rate Taxable Sales Total Sales Tax Revenue Business Permits Average Sales Tax/Business City of Lake Elsinore 1.00% $20,100,196 $203,545 2 $13,026 Riverside County 0.50% $20,100,196 $109,157 – $6,563 State of California 6.25% $20,100,196 $1,256,262 – $78,516 Source: California State Board of Equalization and the City of Lake Elsinore (2011). Implementation of Alternative 3 would also result in the loss of parking spaces for area businesses. Under Build Alternative 3, a total of 63 parking spaces would be lost in the southwest quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange due to partial acquisitions of commercial properties. As previously stated, the City of Lake Elsinore requires one parking space for every 250 sf of gross floor area for areas utilized for commercial uses.1 The area in which 63 parking spaces would be removed currently has five commercial buildings totaling approximately 42,420 sf in size. Based on City of Lake Elsinore parking standards, the shopping area should have a minimum of 170 parking spaces available.2 The shopping center currently provides approximately 392 parking spaces for patrons to use, which is in excess of minimum City requirements. The removal of 63 parking spaces would result in approximately 329 parking spaces available for the shopping center. The remaining parking spaces would still be in excess of the amount minimally required by the City. Although businesses in the southwest quadrant would lose 75 on-site parking spaces, the majority of these spaces are associated with the two businesses that would require relocation. Although there would be a loss of parking spaces, as stated above, it is not expected that the loss would result in a parking space deficiency because the parking that would be lost currently is dedicated to Sizzler and Pizza Hut patrons. Other businesses in the area have existing dedicated parking and are unlikely to be using the parking allotted for the Sizzler and Pizza Hut. Based on the preliminary right-of-way proposed for Alternative 3, it is anticipated that parking lot circulation would not be affected by implementation of this alternative. The removal of parking spaces would not result in blocking public access to the property and would not increase traffic congestion within the parking lot. Implementation of Alternative 3 would create secondary fiscal impacts as a result of the right-of- way acquisition and relocations due to the removal of property from the local tax base. The acquisition of property for conversion to transportation uses would result in a loss of taxable property in the City of Lake Elsinore; however, this would be minimal compared to the City’s total tax assessment base. 1 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 2010. Chapter 17.148 Parking Requirements (revised August 24, 2010). 2 42,420 square feet of commercial uses * 1 parking space/250 square feet of commercial uses = 169.6 parking spaces required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-11 ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of privately owned property, including residential and commercial land and buildings. Table 2.4.G summarizes the anticipated partial and full acquisitions under Alternative 4. As identified in Table 2.4.G, Alternative 4 would require the partial acquisition of 64 parcels, totaling 815,431 sf. Alternative 4 would also require the full acquisition of 16 parcels (1 residential parcel and 14 vacant parcels) totaling 174,199 sf. Previously referenced Figure 2.3.2 illustrates the property acquisitions required for Alternative 4. The full right-of-way acquisitions identified for this alternative are based on conceptual design. The actual right-of-way (full and partial acquisitions) for the project would be refined and defined during final design. Table 2.4.G: Summary of Property Acquisitions for Build Alternative 4 Permanent Acquisitions Temporary Construction Easements Number of Full Parcels Total Square Footage/Square Meters Number of Partial Parcels Total Square Footage/Square Meters Number of Parcels Total Square Footage/Square Meters Total: 13 Residential: 1 Commercial: 0 Vacant Land:11 Caltrans: 1 174,199 Total: 64 Residential: 1 Commercial: 12 Vacant Land: 43 Landscaped Area: 1 Roadway:7 815,431 Total: 18 Residential: 0 Commercial: 16 Vacant Land: 2 21,984 Source: Riverside County Parcel Data (December 2014). Note: The construction of I-15/Franklin Street interchange would occur under all Build Alternatives. I-15 = Interstate 15 Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would displace a single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the proposed I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. A total of 3–4 residents would be displaced as a result of the acquisition of this residential unit. Finding replacement dwellings in the City of Lake Elsinore for residents displaced by Alternative 4 would be dependent in part on the overall demand for housing in the Inland Empire. Adequate replacement properties are anticipated to exist for the project. As of December 2014, there were approximately 699 homes for sale or rent in the City of Lake Elsinore. Based on existing market conditions, there currently is adequate replacement housing for the project in the City of Lake Elsinore. The estimated real estate values described above are for a specific period of time and cannot be guaranteed beyond those dates. The actual property acquisitions and subsequent relocations for the project may not occur for some time; therefore, values at the time of acquisition are subject to variance from those reported here. It is possible that adequate relocation resources may not exist for the owners and/or tenants of the single-family residence in the project area at the time of the displacement. As a result, relocation opportunities in other cities in the County, such as Menifee, Murrieta, and Wildomar, may be used to relocate residents displaced by the project. It is not anticipated that temporary housing and/or Last Resort Housing would be required for the project; however, they would be used in the event that relocating displaced residents require those benefits. This has been incorporated as Measure REL-1. Alternative 4 would not result in any business displacements. Therefore, no employees would be displaced under this alternative. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-12 Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in the loss of parking spaces for area businesses. Under Build Alternative 4, a total of 3 parking spaces in the northwest quadrant (I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange) would be lost due to partial acquisitions of commercial properties. The City of Lake Elsinore requires one parking space for every 250 sf of gross floor area for areas utilized for commercial uses.1 The area in which 3 parking spaces would be removed currently has two commercial buildings totaling approximately 10,600 sf in size. Based on City of Lake Elsinore parking standards, the shopping area is required to provide a minimum of 43 parking spaces.2 The shopping center currently provides 90 parking spaces for patrons to use, which is in excess of minimum City requirements. The removal of 3 parking spaces would result in approximately 87 parking spaces available for the shopping center. The remaining parking spaces would still be in excess of the amount minimally required by the City. Based on the preliminary right-of-way proposed for Alternative 4, it is anticipated that parking lot circulation would not be affected by implementation of this alternative. The removal of parking spaces would not result in blocking public access to the property and would not increase traffic congestion within the parking lot. Construction of Alternative 4 would create secondary fiscal impacts as a result of the right-of- way acquisition and relocations. Alternative 4 would have an impact due to the removal of property from the local tax base. The acquisition of property for conversion to transportation uses would result in a loss of taxable property in the City. Property taxes are levied on the assessed value of privately owned property. Property taxes for properties within the study area are collected by the County and apportioned to the City, with the amount levied being approximately 1 percent of the assessed property value. According to the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector, approximately eight cents of every dollar in paid property taxes is distributed to the City as property tax revenue. The only parcels included in calculations for property tax loss are parcels to be fully acquired by the project. The amount of property tax paid by parcel was recorded based upon property taxes paid to the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector in 2011. The potential property tax losses for Alternative 4 total $4,313.24, which represents 0.07 percent of Lake Elsinore’s total property tax revenue ($5,537,970).3 As previously stated, Alternative 4 would not require the acquisition of any businesses. Therefore, no loss of potential sales tax would occur. Although Alternative 4 would result in the displacement of a residence, it would have positive effects because improved traffic operations may encourage businesses to relocate into the area. Property values in the project area would be expected to increase as a result of improved access, resulting in higher property tax yields. Business sales in the area would also be expected to improve due to improved access for customers, resulting in higher sales tax yields. All property acquisitions and relocations would be handled in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) of 1970 (Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894). 1 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 2010. Chapter 17.148 Parking Requirements, revised August 24, 2010. 2 10,600 square feet of commercial uses * 1 parking space/250 square feet of commercial uses = 42.4 parking spaces required. 3 City of Lake Elsinore. FY 2013-2014. Adopted Operating Budget. Website: http://issuu.com/ cityoflakeelsinore/docs/final_adopted_budget_13-14_web_redu (accessed March 3, 2015). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-13 CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: XIII. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would require the relocation of one existing residence. As identified in the Relocation Impact Memorandum,1 based on the current availability of 699 residences for rent or sale within the City, there will be sufficient residential resources for rent or purchase if the residence is required to relocate as a result of the project. To ensure that the displacement of this residence is minimized, Minimization Measure REL-1, a standard condition presented below in Section 2.4.4, has been identified. Adherence to Minimization REL-1 would ensure impacts remain less than significant. XIII. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to CEQA Response a) above. 2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on current vacancy rates in the City of Lake Elsinore, it is anticipated that the displaced nonresidential and residential uses can be relocated within the City or the immediately surrounding areas. It is not anticipated that the statutory limits for the Last Resort Housing Program would be exceeded for the one residence that would be displaced; however, the Last Resort Housing Program would be used if required. The following measure would be implemented under any of the Build Alternatives: Minimization Measure REL-1 The City of Lake Elsinore shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act (Uniform Act) of 1970 and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs adopted by the United States Department of Transportation (March 2, 1989). 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Relocation Impact Memorandum for I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. January. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.4-14 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.5-1 2.5 Environmental Justice 2.5.1 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 Caltrans’ use of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. For 2015, this was $24,250 for a family of four. All considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes have also been included in this project. Caltrans’ commitment to upholding the mandates of Title VI is evidenced by its Title VI Policy Statement, signed by the Director, which can be found in Appendix C of this document. 2.5.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the information from the following documents prepared for the project: Community Impact Assessment (December 2010) Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2012) Second Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (January 2015) Third Supplemental Memorandum to the Final Community Impact Assessment (February 2015) The following were utilized in the evaluation of potential environmental justice impacts: Percentage of Non-White residents in the project area census tracts; Percentage of Hispanic residents (the United States Census Bureau considers Hispanic or Latino ethnicity distinct from racial background) in the project area census tracts; Percentage of population below the poverty level in the project area census tracts; and Median household income in the project area census tracts. Table 2.5.A summarizes the percentage of minority and below-poverty-level populations, and the median household income found in the study area census tracts and the City of Lake Elsinore. As identified in Table 2.5.A, the Non-White population comprises approximately 34 and 38 percent of the population in Census Tract 430.01 and 430.06. For Census Tracts 427.15 and 464.04, the Non-White population comprises approximately 32 and 31 percent of the total population. Census Tracts 430.01 and 430.06 have a higher percentage of Hispanic residents than the City of Lake Elsinore (48 percent), while Census Tracts 427.15 and 464.04 have a lower percentage of Hispanic residents than the City. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.5-2 Table 2.5.A: Environmental Justice Populations Census Tract Non-White (not including Hispanic) Hispanic Percentage Below Poverty Median Household Income Census Tract 427.15 31.6% 35.8% 6.9% $83,600 Census Tract 430.01 33.5% 60.1% 24.0% $35,926 Census Tract 430.06 38.3% 63.0% 24.8% $40,360 Census Tract 464.04 31.3% 42.2% 19.0% $61,504 City of Lake Elsinore 33.9% 48.4% 13.2% $62,436 County of Riverside 34.3% 45.5% 15.6% $57,096 Source: United States Census Bureau. 2010. Table B25046-Aggregate Number of Vehicles Available by Tenure, Table B19013- Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months, Table S1701 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, 2008–2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Census 2010. Census Tract 427.15 has a substantially higher median household income above the City of Lake Elsinore average of $62,436 while the remaining three census tracts (Census Tracts 430.01, 430.06, and 464.04) have lower-than-average median household incomes compared to the City of Lake Elsinore average. Similarly, Census Tract 427.15 has a lower percentage of persons below poverty than the reference population of the City of Lake Elsinore (13.2 percent), while the other three study area census tracts have a higher percentage of people below the poverty level than the reference population of the City. 2.5.3 Environmental Consequences 2.5.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in property acquisition, community disruption, or other changes that could adversely affect environmental justice populations. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Alternative 2 would result in short-term construction-related air quality, noise, and traffic impacts to all residents in the study area census tracts. However, these impacts would not be predominantly borne by these minority or low-income populations, and the project-related construction impacts would not be appreciably more severe to these minority or low-income populations compared to other populations in the City. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would result in short-term construction-related air quality, noise, and traffic impacts to all residents in the study area census tracts. However, these impacts would not be predominantly borne by these minority or low-income populations, and the project-related construction impacts would not be appreciably more severe to these minority or low-income populations compared to other populations in the City. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would result in short-term construction-related air quality, noise, and traffic impacts to all residents in the study area census tracts. However, these impacts would not be predominantly borne by these minority or low-income populations, and the project-related construction impacts would not be appreciably more severe to these minority or low-income populations compared to other populations in the City. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.5-3 2.5.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in property acquisition, community disruption, or other changes that could adversely affect environmental justice populations. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Implementation of Alternative 2 would provide beneficial impacts to the area. Residents displaced as a result of the single residential parcel acquisition required for construction of the planned improvements at the I-15/Franklin Street interchange are expected to be relocated to other sites in the surrounding community. None of the study area census tracts were determined to have a disproportionate number of environmental justice populations compared to the rest of the City. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Implementation of Alternative 3 would provide beneficial impacts to the area. Impacts for Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Residents displaced as a result of the single residential parcel acquisition required for construction of the proposed improvements at the I-15/Franklin Street interchange are expected to be relocated to other sites in the surrounding community. None of the study area census tracts were determined to have a disproportionate number of environmental justice populations compared to the rest of the City. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Implementation of Alternative 4 would provide beneficial impacts to the area. Impacts for Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Residents displaced as a result of the single residential parcel acquisition required for construction of the proposed improvements at the I-15/Franklin Street interchange are expected to be relocated to other sites in the surrounding community. None of the study area census tracts were determined to have a disproportionate number of environmental justice populations compared to the rest of the City. 2.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on the above discussion and analysis, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would not cause disproportionately high or adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations as per EO 12898 regarding environmental justice. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.5-4 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-1 2.6 Utilities and Emergency Services 2.6.1 Affected Environment This section is based on a review of existing utility and service providers and facilities within and immediately adjacent to the project disturbance limits. 2.6.1.1 Utilities Water and sewer services in the vicinity of the project intersection are provided by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas while Southern California Edison provides electricity. Cable and telecommunication services are provided by both Verizon and Time Warner Cable. Utilities provided in the project area are summarized in Table 2.6.A. Table 2.6.A: Utility Service Providers Utility Category Utility Provider Water Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Sewer Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Gas Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company) Electricity Southern California Edison Telecommunications Verizon Time Warner Cable 2.6.1.2 Fire Protection The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for fire services from the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services. The City is served by Battalion 2 in the Southwest Division of RCFD. The Southwest Division encompasses the southwestern portion of Riverside County and contains 19 permanently staffed stations and two all-volunteer stations. Battalion 2 contains seven permanently staffed stations (Elsinore Fire Station No. 10, Lakeland Village Fire Station No. 11, El Cariso Fire Station No. 51, Wildomar Fire Station No. 61, McVicker Park Fire Station No. 85, Canyon Hills Fire Station No. 94, and Rosetta Canyon Fire Station No. 97) and two all-volunteer stations (Rancho Carrillo Fire Station No. 62 and Rancho Capistrano Fire Station No. 74). Of these stations, four permanently staffed stations (Elsinore Fire Station No. 10, McVicker Park Fire Station No. 85, Canyon Hills Fire Station No. 94, and Rosetta Canyon Station No. 97) are located within the City limits. Both RCFD and CalFire respond to all types of emergencies, depending on the need and equipment available. Emergencies range from wildland fires, residential/commercial structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid, search and rescue missions, hazardous materials spills, floods, and earthquakes. The nearest fire station to the project study area is Canyon Hills Fire Station No. 94, located approximately 1.6 miles east of the project study area. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-2 2.6.1.3 Law Enforcement The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for police protection from Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD). The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff’s Station is located on the northeast edge of the lake at 333 W. Limited Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the project study area. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has jurisdiction on freeways in the State of California, including Interstate 15 (I-15). The nearest CHP area office is in Temecula at 27685 Commerce Center Drive, approximately 11 miles southeast of the project study area. 2.6.1.4 Hospitals There are no hospitals within 5 miles of the project area. The nearest hospital to the project area is Inland Valley Medical Center, (36485 Inland Valley Drive, Wildomar) approximately 7 miles southwest of the project area. 2.6.2 Environmental Consequences 2.6.2.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not involve construction activities; therefore, no temporary impact to utilities or emergency services would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Implementation of Alternative 2 would require protection in place, removal, replacement, or relocation of existing utility facilities within the project disturbance limits. An updated utility search and potholing, as specified below in Measures UES-1 through UES-3, would be required during final design to determine all utility conflicts that require positive location and/or relocation prior to and during project construction. The utility facilities that have the potential to be affected by project construction are listed in Table 2.6.B. During construction, some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response times, may occur. These temporary impacts would be substantially minimized through the implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) as identified in Section 2.7. Additionally, measures to minimize the risk of fires during construction would be implemented, as specified below in Measure UES-4. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Implementation of Alternative 3 would require protection in place, removal, replacement, or relocation of existing utility facilities within the project disturbance limits. An updated utility search and potholing, as specified below in Measures UES-1 through UES-3, would be required during final design to determine all utility conflicts that require positive location and/or relocation prior to and during project construction. The utility facilities that have the potential to be impacted by project construction under this alternative are listed in previously referenced Table 2.6.B. During construction, some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response times, may occur. However, these temporary impacts would be substantially minimized through the implementation of a TMP. Additionally, measures to minimize the risk of fires during construction would be implemented, as specified below in Measure UES-4. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-3Table 2.6.B: Potential Utility Conflicts During Project Construction Utility Category Utility Provider Description Location Conflict ResolutionAlternative 2 Alternative 3Alternative 4Water Elsinore Valley Municipal District Water Line Underground Grape Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place 2 Water Lines Underground Railroad Canyon Road Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Water Line Underground Casino Drive No Construction Work – No Impact Relocate Fire Hydrant No Construction Work – No Impact Water Line Underground Franklin Street Relocate 1,200 feet of 54-inch Water Line Relocate 1,200 feet of 54-inch Water Line Relocate 1,200 feet of 54-inch Water Line Water Line Underground Camino Del Norte Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Water Line Underground Various I-15 Crossings Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Sewer Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Sewer Line Underground Grape Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Sewer Line Underground Casino Drive No Construction Work – No Impact Protect in Place No Construction Work – No Impact Sewer Line Underground Franklin Street Relocate 1,200 feet of 30-inch Sewer Line Relocate 1,200 feet of 30-inch Sewer Line Relocate 1,200 feet of 30-inch Sewer Line Sewer Line Underground Various I-15 Crossings Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Gas Southern California Gas Company Gas Line Underground Grape Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place 2 Gas Lines Underground Railroad Canyon Road Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Gas Line Underground Main Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Gas Line Underground Camino Del Norte Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Gas Line Underground Casino Drive No Construction Work – No Impact Protect in Place No Construction Work – No Impact Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-4 Table 2.6.B: Potential Utility Conflicts During Project Construction Utility Category Utility Provider Description Location Conflict ResolutionAlternative 2 Alternative 3Alternative 4Electricity Southern California Edison Electrical Overhead Line Casino Drive No Construction Work – No Impact Relocate 1 power and vaults No Construction Work – No Impact Electrical Overhead Line Franklin Street Relocate 9 power poles and vaults Relocate 9 power poles and vaults Relocate 9 power poles and vaults Electrical Underground Line Franklin Street Relocate 910 feet of conduit Relocate 910 feet of conduit Relocate 910 feet of conduit Electrical Underground Line Main Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Electrical Overhead Line Camino Del Norte Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Electrical Overhead Line Various I-15 Crossings Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Telecommunications Verizon Telephone/Fiber Underground Line Grape Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Telephone Underground Line Railroad Canyon Road Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Fiber Optic Underground Line Railroad Canyon Road Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Telephone Underground Line Casino Drive No Construction Work – No Impact Protect in Place No Construction Work – No Impact Fiber Optic Underground Line Casino Drive No Construction Work – No Impact Relocate No Construction Work – No Impact Cellular Tower Franklin Street Relocate Cellular Tower Relocate Cellular Tower Relocate Cellular Tower Telephone Underground Line Main Street Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Telephone Underground Line Camino Del Norte Protect in Place Protect in Place Protect in Place Source: SC Engineering (June 2015). Note: It is anticipated that no Time Warner Cable facilities would be in conflict with the project. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-5 ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Implementation of Alternative 4 would require protection in place, removal, replacement, or relocation of existing utility facilities within the project disturbance limits. An updated utility search and potholing, as specified below in Measures UES-1 through UES-3, would be required during final design to determine all utility conflicts that require positive location and/or relocation prior to and during project construction. The utility facilities that have the potential to be impacted by project construction under this alternative are listed in previously referenced Table 2.6.B. During construction, some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response times, may occur. However, these temporary impacts would be substantially minimized through the implementation of a TMP. Additionally, measures to minimize the risk of fires during construction would be implemented, as specified below in Measure UES-4. 2.6.2.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in relocations of utilities; therefore, no permanent utility impacts would occur. The No Build Alternative would not improve local circulation or access within the City and surrounding communities. In addition, no improvements would be constructed that would improve access for emergency service vehicles, including fire and police. Therefore, continuous congestion under this alternative has the potential to reduce response times of emergency services that utilize the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and local roads. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Any relocation of utilities as a result of the implementation of Alternative 2 would occur during the final design or construction phase, such that all utility services are permanently maintained. Additionally, in the event that undergrounding of existing utilities is proposed, the underground of such utilities would be coordinated and decided upon with the utility companies during the final design phase. If resolution of the location of utilities during final design involves changes to the project footprint, an Environmental Re-Evaluation will be performed, addressing applicable requirements. Because the project is a highway improvement project, it would not result in a substantive increase in the need for domestic water services, wastewater facilities, or solid waste disposal. The project would reduce congestion in the interchange area as identified in Section 1.2.2. In addition, the improvements would enhance access for emergency service vehicles, including fire and police vehicles. Therefore, the implementation of Alternative 2 would improve the response times of emergency services that utilize the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and local roads, including Franklin Street, compared to the No Build Alternative. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Any relocation of utilities as a result of Alternative 3 would occur during the final design or construction phase, such that all utility services are permanently maintained. Additionally, proposed undergrounding of existing utilities would be coordinated and decided upon with the utility companies during the final design phase. If resolution of the location of utilities during final design involves changes to the project footprint, an Environmental Re-Evaluation will be Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-6 performed, addressing applicable requirements. Because the project is a highway improvement project, it would not result in a substantive increase in the need for domestic water services, wastewater facilities, or solid waste disposal. The project would reduce congestion in the interchange area as identified in Section 1.2.2. In addition, the improvements would enhance access for emergency service vehicles, including fire and police vehicles. Therefore, Alternative 3 would improve the response times of emergency services that utilize the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, the I-15/Franklin Street interchange, and local roads, compared to the No Build Alternative. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Any relocation of utilities as a result of Alternative 4 would occur during the final design or construction phase, such that all utility services are permanently maintained. Additionally, proposed undergrounding of existing utilities would be coordinated and decided upon with the utility companies during the final design phase. If resolution of the location of utilities during final design involves changes to the project footprint, an Environmental Re-Evaluation will be performed, addressing applicable requirements. Because the project is a highway improvement project, it would not result in a substantive increase in the need for domestic water services, wastewater facilities, or solid waste disposal. The project would reduce congestion in the interchange area as identified in Section 1.2.2. In addition, the improvements would enhance access for emergency service vehicles, including fire and police vehicles. Therefore, Alternative 4 would improve the response times of emergency services that utilize the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, the I-15/Franklin Street interchange, and local roads, compared to the No Build Alternative. CEQA DISCUSSION XIV. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for fire services with the RCFD and CalFire. The RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services. The City is served by Battalion 2 in the Southwest Division of RCFD. There are currently four fire stations (Lake Elsinore Fire Station No. 10, McVicker Park Fire Station No. 85, Canyon Hills Fire Station No. 94, and Rosetta Canyon Station No. 97) within the City limits. Although the fire stations are operated by RCFD, CalFire staffs firefighters and stores firefighting equipment at stations throughout the City, particularly during peak fire season. Both RCFD and CalFire respond to all types of emergencies, depending on the need and equipment available. Emergencies range from wildland fires, residential/commercial structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid, search and rescue missions, hazardous materials spills, floods, and earthquakes. The nearest fire station to the project study area is Canyon Hills Fire Station No. 94, located approximately 1.6 miles east of the project study area. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-7 The project does not include the construction of structures or features or changes in operation that would increase demand on fire protection services for the project site or area. However, traffic detours during construction may affect emergency response times. In addition, construction activities may slightly increase fire risks or increase the need for emergency response if there is an accident on the construction site. Adherence to Minimization Measure TR-1, presented below in Section 2.7.4, and UES-4, presented below in Section 2.6.4, which are standard conditions, would minimize the potential impacts that construction activities may have on emergency services providers and ensure impacts remain less than significant. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for police protection from the County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department. The police department currently employs a total of 38 sworn officers within the City. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff’s Station is located on the northeast edge of the lake at 333 Limited Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the project study area. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has jurisdiction on freeways in the State of California, including I-15. The nearest CHP area office is in Temecula at 27685 Commerce Center Drive, approximately 11 miles southeast from the project study area. The project does not include the construction of structures or features or changes in operation that would increase demand on police protection services in the area. However, traffic detours during construction may affect emergency response times. In addition, construction activities may slightly increase the need for emergency response if there is an accident on the construction site. Adherence to Minimization Measure TR-1, a standard condition presented below in Section 2.7.4, would minimize the potential impacts that construction activities may have on emergency services providers and ensure impacts remain less than significant. XVIII. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates wastewater discharges within the drainage area around Lake Elsinore. The project is an infrastructure project and does not include a residential, industrial, or commercial component. Therefore, the project would not permanently generate wastewater. Because implementation of the project does not envision modifications in the current system of wastewater disposal in the area, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. XVIII. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is within the service boundary for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). On-site water usage would be generally limited to the application of water on construction areas to control dust. The project does not include the development of uses that require additional potable or treated water, or the connection to existing potable/treated water systems. However, implementation of the project would require protection in place, removal, replacement, or relocation of existing utility facilities within the project disturbance limits. An updated utility search and potholing, as specified in Minimization Measures UES-1 through UES-3, presented below in Section 2.6.3, would be required during final design to determine all utility conflicts that require positive location and/or relocation prior to and during project construction. Adherence to Minimization Measures UES-1 through UES-3, which are standard conditions, would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-8 XVIII. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes roadway and interchange improvements to an existing transportation facility. No new or expanded storm drain facilities are proposed. However, implementation of the project would require protection in place, removal, replacement, or relocation of existing utility facilities within the project disturbance limits. An updated utility search and potholing, which are standard conditions as specified in Minimization Measures UES-1 through UES-3, presented below in Section 2.6.3, would be required during final design to determine all utility conflicts that require positive location and/or relocation prior to and during project construction. Adherence to Minimization Measures UES-1 through UES-3 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. XVIII. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project is an interchange improvement project which does not include a residential, industrial, or commercial component. Since the project does not include the construction or operation of any structure or facility that would permanently increase the demand for potable water, no new or expanded water entitlements would be required. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. XVIII. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. As previously stated, the project is an interchange improvement project that does not include a residential, industrial, or commercial component. Since the project does not include the construction or operation of any structure or facility that would permanently increase the generation of wastewater, no new or expanded wastewater facilities or services would be required. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. XVIII. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Waste from the project area is currently collected by the City’s trash collection service provider, Waste Management, Inc. Once collected, solid waste is transported to El Sobrante Landfill, located in Temescal Canyon, south of Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is a 495-acre facility owned and operated by a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. with a daily permitted throughput of 10,000 tons per day, a remaining capacity of 118,573,540 tons,1 and an estimated closure date of 2030. Current average daily throughput of in-County waste is estimated at 3,315 tons, and out-of-County waste is estimated at 3,804 tons.2 Current surplus capacity totals 2,881 tons/day.3 The project is an infrastructure project. As such, the operation of the project would not increase the need for solid waste disposal. During construction, some construction waste would be generated. However, it 1 Cal Recycle. 2017. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), Facility/Site Summary Details. Website: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ SWIS/33-AA-0217/Detail/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 2 Correspondence from Sung Key Ma, Riverside County Waste Management Department Planner, dated August 17, 2008. 3 3,315 tons in-county + 3,804 out-of-county = 7,119 tons. 10,000 tons – 7,119 tons = 2,881 tons. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-9 would not result in a substantive increase in the need for solid waste disposal. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. XVIII. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of improvements to the existing roadway and interchange system. The operation of the project would not generate any solid waste. During construction, some construction waste would be generated. The project would be required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), and other applicable local, State, and Federal solid waste disposal standards. Adherence to these solid waste requirements and standards would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 2.6.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures In addition to the following mitigation measures, implementation of a TMP, as discussed in detail in Section 2.7, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, would minimize temporary construction-related impacts to emergency services. Minimization Measures UES-1 During the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) shall conduct an updated utility search to determine all utility conflicts that require positive location, protection in place, and/or relocation. Proposed undergrounding of existing utilities will be coordinated and decided upon with the utility companies during the final design phase. UES-2 During the PS&E stage, the City shall obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans for surveying and utility potholing within and immediately adjacent to the project disturbance limits. This measure applies only to work conducted within State right-of-way. UES-3 Prior to commencement of construction, the City shall coordinate with all affected utility providers to establish exact procedures and specifications for all facilities to be protected in place and relocated during construction to ensure that utility services are not disrupted. UES-4 Fire Prevention During Construction: Prior to and during any construction activities, the City shall require the construction contractor to implement the following measures to minimize the risk of fires during construction: Coordinate with the applicable local fire department to identify and maintain defensible spaces around active construction areas. Coordinate with the applicable local fire department to identify and maintain firefighting equipment (extinguishers, shovels, and water tankers) in active construction areas. Prohibit the use of mechanized equipment or equipment that could throw off sparks in areas adjacent to open space or undeveloped land. Post emergency services phone numbers (fire, emergency medical, and police) in visible locations in all active construction areas. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.6-10 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-1 2.7 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2.7.1 Regulatory Setting Caltrans, as assigned by Federal Highway Administration (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. 2.7.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents: Traffic Impact Analysis – Interstate 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Road Interchange (August 2009) Supplemental Traffic Memorandum – Updating Existing Traffic Data to 2009 and Opening Year to 2015 (December 2010) Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis- Phase 1 Improvements – I-15 at Railroad Canyon Interchange Opening Year 2015 Analysis (June 2011) Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014) These documents are collectively referred to as the “analysis” unless otherwise noted throughout this section. The 2014 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis studied the baseline traffic conditions (2013); opening year traffic demand for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, Phase 1 (2019); failure year traffic conditions for Alternative 4, Phase 1 (2025) and Alternatives 2 and 3, Phase 1 (2032); opening year traffic conditions for Alternative 4, Phase 2 (2025) and Alternatives 2 and 3, Phase 2 (2032); and future design year traffic conditions for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2040); and assessed the impact of the proposed improvements on traffic conditions. The study area for the project includes the freeway mainline, ramps, and intersections in the vicinity of the interchange as well as adjacent interchanges. As identified in the Traffic Report, the study area is at I-15 on Railroad Canyon Road from Bundy Canyon Road to Main Street. In the project area, I-15 has three mixed-flow lanes in each direction, separated by a median. The existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange is a diamond interchange with single-lane on- and off-ramps. The major roadways in the study area are: Bundy Canyon Road, a four-lane facility with left-turn lanes at intersections Lemon Street, a two-lane facility Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-2 Olive Street, a two-lane facility Railroad Canyon Road-Diamond Drive, a four-lane facility with left-turn lanes at intersections Franklin Street, a two-lane facility Main Street, a two-lane facility with left-turn lanes at intersections Grape Street, a two-lane to four-lane facility Summerhill Drive, a four-lane facility Mission Trail, a four-lane facility Lakeshore Drive, a four-lane facility Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive, a two-lane to four-lane facility Existing freeway segments in the study area are as follows: Southbound: o Main Street On-Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road Off-Ramp o Railroad Canyon Road On-Ramp to Bundy Canyon Road Off-Ramp Northbound: o Bundy Canyon Road On-Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road Off-Ramp o Railroad Canyon Road On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp Sidewalks are provided on Railroad Canyon Road, Diamond Drive, Casino Drive, Grape Street, and Summerhill Drive within the project area. Railroad Canyon Road is designated as a Class II bicycle route in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, but no bike lane currently exists. 2.7.2.1 Baseline (2013) Traffic Conditions FREEWAY MAINLINE Table 2.7.A identifies the baseline (2013) mainline levels of service (LOS) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the No Build Alternative. Traffic counts were recorded for passenger cars, two-axle trucks, three-axle trucks, and four-axle trucks. The trucks were factored into Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs) that convert traffic volumes to an equivalent number of passenger cars based on the type of truck. As identified in Table 2.7.A, all freeway segments in the study area currently operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 2.7.A identifies the baseline (2013) LOS at intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.A, two out of the eleven study intersections analyzed, currently exceed the LOS standard of D during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours; three intersections exceed the LOS D standard during the p.m. peak hour, and two intersections exceeds the LOS D standard during the a.m. peak hour. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-3 FREEWAY RAMPS Table 2.7.A summarizes the baseline (2013) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road, I-15/Main Street, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas for the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.A, all freeway ramp junctions are operating at LOS D or better during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS E or better during the p.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.A: 2013 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, No Build Alternative Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C D Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B C Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D E Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E F Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive F F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) C B Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) C C Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp C D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp D E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp D C Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Main Street Exit Ramp D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16, Table 1, and Table 24 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-4 FREEWAY EXIT RAMP QUEUING Table 2.7.B summarizes the baseline (2013) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for the Railroad Canyon Road exit ramps for the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.B, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour queue exceeds the available ramp length and queuing occurs at the southbound exit ramp on Railroad Canyon Road, and during the p.m. peak hour queue exceeds the available ramp length, and queuing also occurs at the northbound exit ramp on Railroad Canyon Road. Table 2.7.B: Baseline Year (2013) Queue Lengths Ramp Junction Available Ramp Lane Length (LF) Queuing Length 95th (LF) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 295 308 585 Yes Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 340 233 392 No-A.M. Yes-P.M. Main Street NB Exit Ramp 955 146 108 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 38 (November 2014). LF = linear feet NB = northbound SB = southbound FREEWAY RAMP METER QUEUING ANALYSIS Because the existing Railroad Canyon Road entrance ramps are not metered, a ramp metering analysis for baseline year (2013) conditions was not performed for the existing ramps. FREEWAY WEAVE-MERGE ANALYSIS Under baseline (2013) conditions, no weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 feet (ft) in length. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. 2.7.3 Environmental Consequences 2.7.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not involve any construction activities; therefore, no temporary impacts would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Traffic delays are expected during project construction for the ramp widening and reconstruction, freeway widening, modifications to local intersections, and the construction of a new interchange. No extended ramp closures are anticipated for this project. Construction of the project would temporarily affect traffic on Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, the I-15 mainline, and the I-15 ramps associated with each of the interchanges. Freeway operations may be affected during construction of the ramps, the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange and associated Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-5 improvements. Limiting construction to off-peak hours would minimize impacts to operation of the I-15 mainline and/or ramps during ongoing construction, if necessary. Temporary nighttime closures of mainline lanes and the on-ramp and off-ramps in either direction may be required during construction. Sidewalk closures on Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street and roadwork during construction would affect pedestrian and bicycle access. Staged construction plans would include provisions for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Temporary construction impacts identified for Alternative 3 would be similar as those identified for Alternative 2. Traffic delays are expected during project construction for the ramp widening and reconstruction, modifications to local intersections, and the construction of a new interchange. No extended ramp closures are anticipated for this project. Construction of the project would temporarily affect traffic on Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, the I-15 mainline, and the I-15 ramps. Freeway operations may be affected during construction of the ramps, construction of the proposed I-15/Franklin Street interchange, and associated project improvements. Limiting construction to off-peak hours would minimize impacts to operation of the I-15 mainline and/or ramps during ongoing construction, if necessary. Temporary nighttime closures of mainline lanes and the on-ramps and off-ramps in either direction may be required during construction. Sidewalk closures on Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street and roadwork during construction would affect pedestrian and bicycle access. Staged construction plans would include provisions for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Temporary construction impacts identified for Alternative 4 would be similar as those identified for Alternatives 2 and 3. Traffic delays are expected during project construction for the ramp widening and reconstruction, modifications to local intersections, and the construction of a new interchange. Construction of the project would temporarily affect traffic on Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, the I-15 mainline, and the I-15 ramps. Freeway operations may be affected during construction of the ramps, construction of the proposed I-15/Franklin Street interchange, and associated project improvements. Limiting construction to off-peak hours would minimize impacts to operation of the I-15 mainline and/or ramps during ongoing construction, if necessary. Closures of mainline lanes and the on-ramps and off-ramps in either direction may be required during construction for a maximum of ten full days. Sidewalk closures on Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street and roadwork during construction would affect pedestrian and bicycle access. Staged construction plans would include provisions for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. 2.7.3.2 Permanent Impacts Permanent impacts for opening year traffic demand for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, Phase 1 (2019); failure year traffic conditions for Alternative 4, Phase 1 (2025) and Alternatives 2 and 3, Phase 1 (2032); opening year traffic conditions for Alternative 4, Phase 2 (2025) and Alternatives 2 and 3, Phase 2 (2032); and future design year traffic conditions for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2040) were analyzed. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-6 As identified in Caltrans’ Policy Memorandum, Policy Implications of Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association et al v. City of Sunnyvale, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (2010), the most important point from this case is that a traffic impact analysis, just like any other environmental impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), must contain an explicit discussion of the future conditions with project compared to the existing baseline conditions. While a comparison of future build to future no build is sufficient for impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a CEQA analysis cannot rely solely on that future analysis and there must be a comparison to baseline conditions. Baseline conditions are the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is completed. As the memorandum states, many agencies are interpreting the Sunnyvale case to state that modeling of the “existing plus project” scenario is required; this is not Caltrans’ reading of the case and Caltrans is not advocating the modeling of “existing plus” project for its projects. Caltrans’ reading of the case is that while the Court did discuss that as one possible approach to glean the project’s impacts when compared to baseline conditions, it is just that, one possible approach. Another possible approach and the one currently being used for the project is to take the difference of the future build versus future no build as a measure of the project’s impacts and then compare that back to the baseline. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE: OPENING YEAR (2019) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.C summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for study area freeway segments under the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.C, during the a.m. peak hour, all but one of the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C or better. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or better. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.C identifies the LOS for mainline I-15 in opening year (2019) with the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.C, six of the 11 remaining study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during the p.m. peak hour. During the a.m. peak hour, two study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS F. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.C summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15, Main Street/I-15, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas under the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.C, all southbound and northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, all northbound ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing It is anticipated that existing deficient conditions would continue under the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.D, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour queue for the southbound and northbound Railroad Canyon Road exit ramps would exceed the available ramp length, and queuing would occur along the mainline. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-7 Table 2.7.C: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, No Build Alternative Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C E Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D D Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B C Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) A B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive C D Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive C C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D F Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E F Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive F F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) D F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) C E Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp D F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp D F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp D E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp E D Main Street Exit Ramp E D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 17, Table 2, and Table 25 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-8 Table 2.7.D: 2019 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing, No Build Alternative Ramp Junction Available Ramp Lane Length (LF) Queuing Length 95th (LF) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 295 404 690 Yes Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 340 344 478 Yes Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 639 584 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 39 (November 2014). LF = linear feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Ramp Metering Queuing Because the existing Railroad Canyon Road entrance ramps are not metered, a ramp metering analysis was not performed for the existing ramps. Freeway Ramp Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE: DESIGN YEAR (2040) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.E summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. levels of service for study area freeway segments for the No Build Alternative. During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, all northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS E or worse because the projected volume on the freeway exceeds its capacity. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.E summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the study intersections for the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.E, all intersections of Railroad Canyon Road (Grape Street-Summerhill Drive, I-15 northbound ramps, I-15 southbound ramps, Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive, and Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive) are projected to operate at LOS E or worse during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Main Street (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate to LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-9 Table 2.7.E: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, No Build Alternative Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) E F I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) E F Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) E F I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) F F Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 5 (Stop Condition) B F Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A B Franklin Street at Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive (Stop Condition) B C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive E F Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive E F Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps F F Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps F F Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte F F Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp F F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp E F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp F F Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp E F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp F F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp F F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp F F Main Street Exit Ramp F F Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 22, Table 12, and Table 31 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.E provides the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 and Main Street/I-15 freeway ramp influence areas under the No Build Alternative. As identified in Table 2.7.E, all ramps in the study area but two southbound freeway ramp junctions during the a.m. peak hours are projected to operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This is the result of high traffic volumes on I-15. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-10 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.F summarizes the future year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for the Railroad Canyon Road exit ramps for the No Build Alternative. Table 2.7.F: 2040 Queue Lengths, No Build Alternative Ramp Junction Available Ramp Lane Length (LF) Queuing Length 95th (LF) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 295 610 1188 Yes Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 340 503 868 Yes Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 2,902 1,829 Yes Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 58 (November 2014). LF = linear feet NB = northbound SB = southbound As identified in Table 2.7.F, the analysis revealed that the a.m. and p.m. peak hour queues would exceed the available ramp length and queuing overflow would occur. Freeway Ramp Meter Queuing Because the existing Railroad Canyon Road entrance ramps are not metered, a ramp metering analysis was not performed for the existing ramps for the No Build Alternative. Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Facilities The No Build Alternative would not involve any construction; therefore, existing nonstandard curb ramps would not be upgraded and proposed bicycle lanes would not be implemented unless they were completed as part of a local project. ALTERNATIVE 2 -PHASE 1: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET —OPENING YEAR (2019) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.G summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for study area freeway segments under Alternative 2-Phase 1. During the a.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or better. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-11 Table 2.7.G: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2-Phase 1 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C E Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D D Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B C Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) A B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B D Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive C D Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) D F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) C E Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp D F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp B F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp D E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Main Street Exit Ramp E D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 17, Table 3, and Table 26 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.G identifies LOS for the study area intersections in opening year (2019) under Alternative 2-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.G, the intersections of Railroad Canyon Road (Grape Street-Summerhill Drive and I-15 southbound ramps, I-15 northbound ramps) operate at LOS D better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersections of Franklin Street (Avenue 6, Auto Center Drive, and Canyon View-Grunder Drive) are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-12 All intersections of Main Street (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate to LOS F or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.G summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15, Main Street/I-15, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 2-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.G, all northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. peak hour, and the southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, all northbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS D or better while all southbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS F or better. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.H summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all the exit ramps in the study area). Based on the data contained in Table 2.7.H, no queuing overflow would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour under Alternative 2-Phase 1. Table 2.7.H: 2019 Exit Ramp Queue Lengths, Alternative 2-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 460 174 320 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 725 163 271 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 639 584 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 40 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Ramp meters are planned at all entrance ramps under Alternative 2. Table 2.7.I summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps for Alternative 2- Phase 1. The analysis revealed that the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate. Therefore, no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under this alternative. Table 2.7.I: 2019 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 757 561 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,286 991 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 41 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-13 Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. ALTERNATIVE 2-PHASE 1: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET — FAILURE YEAR (2032) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.J identifies the LOS for I-15 mainline segments in Failure Year (2032) conditions with Alternative 2-Phase 1. All mainline freeway segments would operate at LOS D or worse during the a.m. peak hour, while all mainline freeway segments would operate at LOS E, with the exception of the southbound segment from Railroad Canyon Road to Main Streets, which would operate at LOS F, during p.m. peak hour. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.J identifies the LOS for study area intersections in failure year (2032) under Alternative 2-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.J, two of the three intersections of Railroad Canyon Road (Grape Street-Summerhill Drive and I-15 southbound/northbound ramps) operate at LOS B during the a.m. and LOS C during the p.m. peak hours. The intersections of Franklin Street (Avenue 6, Auto Center Drive, and Canyon View-Grunder Drive) are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Main Street (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate to at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.J summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15 and Main Street/I-15 freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 2- Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.J, all southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. During the a.m. peak hour, five of the eight ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or worse. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.K summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps within the study area (Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramps) for Alternative 2-Phase 1. As indicated in Table 2.7.K, queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour on the Main Street northbound exit ramp and during the p.m. peak hour at Railroad Canyon Road southbound exit ramp. Freeway Entrance Ramp Metering Ramp meters are planned at two entrance ramps for Phase 1 of this alternative. Table 2.7.L summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. The analysis reveals that the Total Ramp Demand would exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate and that queuing would occur at Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road northbound entrance ramp during the a.m. peak hour. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-14 Table 2.7.J: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2-Phase 1 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) D E I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D F Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) D E I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) F E Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B D Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B C Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive D F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) F F Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp E F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D F Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp E F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp E F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp F F Main Street Exit Ramp F E Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 18, Table 6, and Table 27 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-15 Table 2.7.K: 2032 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing, Alternative 2-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Available Ramp Lane Length (LF) Queuing Length 95th (LF) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 460 175 501 No – A.M. Yes – P.M. Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 725 258 390 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 2066 1525 Yes Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 46 (November 2014). LF = linear feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Table 2.7.L: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 995 708 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,622 1,250 Yes-A.M. No-P.M. Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 47 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. ALTERNATIVE 2-PHASE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET — OPENING YEAR (2032) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.M identifies the LOS for I-15 mainline segments in opening year (2032) conditions with Alternative 2-Phase 2. As Table 2.7.M indicates, during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C or better. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-16 Table 2.7.M: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2-Phase 2 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) B C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) B C Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive C C Franklin Street/SB Ramps B B Franklin Street/NB Ramps B A Franklin Street at Camino Del Norte A A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive C D Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) B C Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) C C Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp C C Franklin Street Exit Ramp D D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C C Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp B C Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp B C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D C Franklin Street Exit Ramp C C Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 20, Table 9, and Table 29 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-17 Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.M identifies the LOS for the study area intersections in opening year (2032) under Alternative 2-Phase 2. As identified in Table 2.7.M, four of the five intersections of Railroad Canyon Road operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersections of Franklin Street are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Main Street (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate to at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.M summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15 and Main Street/I-15 freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 2-Phase 2. As identified in Table 2.7.M, all but one southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. All of the northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.N summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps within the study area (Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp, Franklin Street Northbound and Southbound Exit Ramps, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramps) for Alternative 2-Phase 2. As indicated in Table 2.7.N, queuing would not occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour for any of the ramps. Table 2.7.N: 2032 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing, Alternative 2-Phase 2 Ramp Junction Available Ramp Lane Length (LF) Queuing Length 95th (LF) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 460 145 264 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 725 147 209 No Franklin Street SB Exit Ramp 685 102 223 No Franklin Street NB Exit Ramp 535 82 62 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 298 308 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 52 (November 2014). LF = linear feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Entrance Ramp Metering Queuing Ramp meters are planned at five entrance ramps for Phase 2 of this alternative. Table 2.7.O summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. The analysis reveals that the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate and that no queuing would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-18 Table 2.7.O: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2-Phase 2 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 721 524 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,253 966 No Franklin Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 314 329 No Franklin Street NB Entrance Ramp 960 412 297 No Main Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 415 448 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 53 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge Table 2.7.P summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour freeway weave- merge LOS between Main Street and Franklin Road and Franklin Road and Railroad Canyon Road under Alternative 2. As identified in Table 2.7.P, all freeway weave-merges are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 2.7.P: 2032 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 2-Phase 2 Freeway Segment Weave Distance (ft) Peak Hour Level of Service A.M. P.M. Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,000 B D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 2,260 C D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Bundy Canyon Exit Ramp 12,590 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Northbound Bundy Canyon Entrance Ramp to Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 11,820 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,700 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Main Street Exit Ramp 2,005 C C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 33 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet LOS = level of service ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET DESIGN YEAR (2040) ANALYSIS. Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.Q identifies the LOS for I-15 mainline segments in design year (2040) conditions under Alternative 2. As Table 2.7.Q indicates, during the a.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-19 Table 2.7.Q: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 2-Phase 2 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street) C D I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C D Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street) C C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive C C Franklin Street/SB Ramps B B Franklin Street/NB Ramps B A Franklin Street at Camino Del Norte A A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive C C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps D D Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive C E Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) B D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) C B Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp C D Franklin Street Exit Ramp C D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp E E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp C F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Franklin Street Exit Ramp C C Franklin Street Entrance Ramp D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 23, Table 13, and Table 32 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-20 Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.Q summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the study intersections under Alternative 2. As identified in Table 2.7.Q, the intersections of Franklin Street (Auto Center Drive, I-15 Northbound and Southbound Ramps, and Camino Del Norte) are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The Railroad Canyon Road intersections (Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive, Casino Road-Auto Center Drive, I-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Grape Street-Summer Hill Drive) are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. peak hours and LOS E or better during p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Main Street (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate to LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.Q summarizes the design (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour LOS for the freeway ramps that would be affected by Alternative 2. As Table 2.7.Q indicates, all northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, and all but one of the southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.R summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps within the study area (Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp, the Franklin Street Southbound and Northbound Exit Ramps, and Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp) for Alternative 2. As indicated in Table 2.7.R, no queuing would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour since there is adequate storage length available at the study area freeway exit ramps. Table 2.7.R: 2040 Exit Ramp Queue Lengths, Alternative 2 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 460 189 352 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 820 270 387 No Franklin Street SB Exit Ramp 685 69 320 No Franklin Street NB Exit Ramp 535 47 42 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp 500 133 130 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 59 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Ramp Meter Queuing Analysis Ramp meters are planned at five entrance ramps for this alternative. Table 2.7.S summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps for Alternative 2. The analysis reveals that the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate and that no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-21 Table 2.7.S: 2040 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 2 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 811 589 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,409 1,120 No Franklin Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 356 372 No Franklin Street NB Entrance Ramp 960 467 337 No Main Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 461 503 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 60 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour. Freeway Weave-Merge Table 2.7.T summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour freeway weave-merge LOS between Main Street and Franklin Road and Franklin Road and Railroad Canyon Road under Alternative 2. Table 2.7.T: 2040 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 2 Freeway Segment Weave Distance (ft) Peak Hour Level of Service A.M. P.M. Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,000 C D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 2,260 C E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Bundy Canyon Exit Ramp 12,590 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Northbound Bundy Canyon Entrance Ramp to Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 11,820 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,700 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Main Street Exit Ramp 2,005 D C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 36 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet LOS = level of service As identified in Table 2.7.T, all freeway weave-merges are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of one southbound freeway segment. This southbound freeway segment is between the Franklin Street entrance ramp and the Railroad Canyon Road exit ramp and is anticipated to operate at an LOS of E during the p.m. peak hour. These conditions are not caused by or aggravated by the project, as this freeways segment is also projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions under the No Build Alternative. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-22 ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET—SUMMARY Tables 2.7.U and 2.7.V provide a comparison of Alternative 2, compared to the No Build Alternative in opening year (2019) and design year (2040) against baseline (2013) conditions. Table 2.7.U: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 2 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/Intersection/ Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 2 (2019) Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 2 (2019) I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road C C C C D D Southbound Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street C C C D E E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road C C C C D D Northbound Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street D D D C D D Intersection Franklin Street at Avenue 6- Stop Condition B B B C C C Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A A A A A Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps* - - - - - - Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps* - - - - - - Franklin Street Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive B A A B B B Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive* - - - - - - Diamond Drive- Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail- Lake Shore Drive B C B C D B Diamond Drove-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road- Auto Center Drive B C B C C B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D D B E F B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E E B F F B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F C F F D Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps C D D B F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C F F C F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte B C C C E E Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-23 Table 2.7.U: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 2 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/Intersection/ Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 2 (2019) Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 2 (2019) Ramp Junction Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp C D D D F F Franklin Street Southbound Exit Ramp* - - - - - - Franklin Street Southbound Entrance Ramp* - - - - - - Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D D B E F F Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp D D C D D D Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D D D C E E Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D D D D D D Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D D C D D C Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D E D D D D Franklin Street Northbound Exit Ramp* - - - - - - Franklin Street Northbound Entrance Ramp* - - - - - - Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp D E E D D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16 and 17, Table 1, 2, and 3, Table 24, 25, and 26 (November 2014). Note: * These locations do not exist under the Baseline (2009) conditions or under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that these locations would reduce the amount of congestion on I-15 or on local streets. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-24 Table 2.7.V: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 2 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/ Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 2 (2040) Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 2 (2040) I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Casino Road- Railroad Canyon Road C E C C F D Southbound Casino Road- Railroad Canyon Road to to Franklin Street* C E C D F D Southbound Franklin Street to Main Street C D Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road C E C C F D Northbound Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street* D F C C F C Northbound Franklin Street to Main Street* C C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B B - C F - Avenue 6-Franklin Street/ Auto Center Drive A A C A B C Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps* - - B - - B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps* - - B - - A Franklin Street/Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive (Stop Condition) B B - B C - Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte-Canyon View Estates Drive* - - A - - A Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B E C C F C Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B E B C F B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D F B E F B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E F D F F D Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F C F F E Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps C F B B F D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C F C C F B Main Street/Camino Del Norte B F B C F C Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-25 Table 2.7.V: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 2 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/ Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 2 (2040) Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 2 (2040) Ramp Junction Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp C F C D F D Franklin Street Southbound Exit Ramp* - - C - - D Franklin Street Southbound Entrance Ramp* - - C - - D Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D E E E F E Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp D F C D F D Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D E C C F F Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D F D D F D Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D F C D F C Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D F C D F D Franklin Street Northbound Exit Ramp* - - D - - D Franklin Street Northbound Entrance Ramp* - - C - - C Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp D F D D F D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16, 22 and 23, Table 1, 12, and 13, Table 24, 31, and 32 (November 2014). Note: * These locations do not exist under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that these locations would reduce the amount of congestion on I-15 or on local streets. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Facilities Within the project limits, existing nonstandard curb ramps would be upgraded to conform to ADA requirements. New curb ramps would meet ADA requirements. In addition, all proposed new sidewalks would meet the requirements to provide ADA access. These features would improve pedestrian access at both interchanges. Railroad Canyon Road is identified as a Class II bicycle facility. Proposed new bicycle facility features that are incorporated into the project design are consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and would improve bicycle access in the interchange areas. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-26 ALTERNATIVE 3-PHASE 1: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE OPENING YEAR (2019) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.W summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak levels of service for study area freeway segments for Alternative 3 Phase-1. During the a.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or better. Table 2.7.W: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3-Phase 1 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C E Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D D Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B C Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) A B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive D F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) D F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) C E Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp D F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp B F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp D E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Main Street Exit Ramp E D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 17, Table 4, and Table 26 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-27 Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.W summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the study intersections under Alternative 3-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.W, the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road at Grape Street-Summerhill Drive is projected to improve to LOS C during the a.m. peak hours. The intersections of Railroad Canyon Road (Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive and Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive) are projected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Main Street intersections (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate at LOS C or worse during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Franklin Street (Avenue 6, Auto Center Drive, and Grunder Drive-Canyon View Estates) are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.W summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15, Main Street/I-15, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 3-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.W, all northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. peak hour, and the southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, all northbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.X summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps (Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp) for Alternative 3-Phase 1. The analysis revealed that no ramps would experience queuing during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. Table 2.7.X: 2019 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 835 152 160 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 820 208 306 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 639 584 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 42 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Ramp Meter Queuing Ramp meters are proposed at two entrance ramps under this alternative. Table 2.7.Y summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. The analysis revealed the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp meter Rate and that no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-28 Table 2.7.Y: 2019 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3-Phase 1 Intersection Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 757 561 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,286 991 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 43 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. ALTERNATIVE 3-PHASE 1: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE — FAILURE YEAR (2032) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.Z identifies the LOS for I-15 mainline segments in failure year (2032) conditions with Alternative 3-Phase 1. All but one mainline freeway segment would operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour, while all mainline freeway segments would operate at LOS E, with the exception of the southbound segment from Railroad Canyon Road to Main Streets, which would operate at LOS F, during p.m. peak hour. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.Z summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour LOS for the study intersections under Alternative 3-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.Z, all of the Franklin Street intersections (at Avenue 6, Auto Center Drive, and Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive), are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Four of the five of the Railroad Canyon Road intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. All three of the Main Street intersections are projected to operate LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak period. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.Z summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15 and Main Street/I-15 freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 3- Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.Z, all southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. During the a.m. peak hour, five of the eight ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or worse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-29 Table 2.7.Z: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3-Phase 1 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) D E I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D F Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) D E I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) F E Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B D Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive C C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive C C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B C Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive E F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) F F Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp E F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D F Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp E F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp E F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp F F Main Street Exit Ramp F E Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 18, Table 7, and Table 27 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AA summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps (Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, and the Franklin Street Southbound and Northbound Exit Ramps). The analysis revealed that queuing would occur on the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-30 Table 2.7.AA: 2032 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 835 197 540 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 820 298 476 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 2066 1525 Yes Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 48 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Entrance Ramp Metering Queuing Ramp meters are proposed at two entrance ramps under Alternative 3-Phase 1. Table 2.7.AB summarizes the failure year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. Based on these data, the Total Ramp Demand only exceeds the Total Ramp Meter Rate for the Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp during the a.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.AB: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 995 708 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,662 1,250 Yes-A.M., No-P.M. Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 49 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. ALTERNATIVE 3-PHASE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE — OPENING YEAR (2032) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.AC provides the LOS for each mainline I-15 segment in the opening year (2032) with the Alternative 3-Phase 2 improvements. As Table 2.7.AC indicates, during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C or better. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-31 Table 2.7.AC: 2032 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3-Phase 2 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) B C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) B C Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive C C Franklin Street/SB Ramps B B Franklin Street/NB Ramps B A Franklin Street at Camino Del Norte A A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps A B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive C D Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) B C Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) C C Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp C C Franklin Street Exit Ramp D D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C C Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp B C Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp B C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D C Franklin Street Exit Ramp C C Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Main Street Exit Ramp D C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 20, Table 10, and Table 29 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-32 Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.AC summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the study intersections under Alternative 3-Phase 2. As identified in Table 2.7.AC, all of the Franklin Street intersections (at Auto Center Drive, Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Camino Del Norte), are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Four of the five Railroad Canyon Road intersections (at Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive, Casino Road-Auto Center Drive, I-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive) are projected to operate at LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All three of the Main Street intersections (at the Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Camino Del Norte) are projected to operate LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.AC summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15 and Main Street/I-15 freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 3-Phase 2. As identified in Table 2.7.AC, all but one southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. All of the northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AD summarizes the future year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for five exit ramps (Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, the Franklin Street Southbound and Northbound Exit Ramps, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp) under Alternative 3-Phase 2. The analysis revealed that no queuing would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.AD: 2032 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3-Phase 2 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 835 107 134 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 820 150 212 No Franklin Street SB Exit Ramp 685 102 223 No Franklin Street NB Exit Ramp 535 82 62 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp 500 298 308 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 54 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Entrance Ramp Metering Queuing Ramp meters are proposed at five entrance ramps under Alternative 3-Phase 2. Table 2.7.AE summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. Based on these data, the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate. Therefore, no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-33 Table 2.7.AE: 2032 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3-Phase 2 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 721 524 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,253 966 No Franklin Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 314 329 No Franklin Street NB Entrance Ramp 960 412 297 No Main Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 415 448 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 55 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge Table 2.7.AF summarizes the opening year (2032) a.m. and p.m. peak hour freeway weave- merge LOS between Main Street and Franklin Road and Franklin Road and Railroad Canyon Road under Alternative 3-Phase 2. As Table 2.7.AF indicates, both the southbound and northbound freeway weave-merges are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 2.7.AF: 2032 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 3-Phase 2 Freeway Segment Weave Distance (ft) Peak Hour Level of Service A.M. P.M. I-15 Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,000 B D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Casino Road- Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 4,020 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Bundy Canyon Exit Ramp 11,680 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) I-15 Northbound Bundy Canyon Entrance Ramp to Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 11,820 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,700 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Main Street Exit Ramp 2,005 C C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 34 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet I-15 = interstate 15 LOS = level of service Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-34 ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE—DESIGN YEAR (2040) ANALYSIS. Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.AG provides LOS for each mainline I-15 segment in design year (2040) with the Alternative 3 improvements. As Table 2.7.AG indicates, during the a.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.AG summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the study intersections under Alternative 3. As identified in Table 2.7.AG, the intersections of Railroad Canyon Road at Grape Street-Summerhill Drive improve to LOS C during the a.m. peak hour. The intersections of Railroad Canyon Road (Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive and Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive) are projected to operate at LOS B or better in the a.m. peak hour and at LOS C or better in the p.m. peak hour. All intersections of Main Street (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate to LOS C or better during the a.m. and LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Franklin Street (1-15 southbound ramps, I-15 northbound ramps, and Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive) are projected to operate at LOS of B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.AG summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the freeway ramps that would be affected by Alternative 3. As Table 2.7.AG indicates, all northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, and the southbound freeway ramp junctions except one are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AH summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps (Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, the Franklin Street Southbound and Northbound Exit Ramps, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramps) under Alternative 3. The analysis revealed that no queuing would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Freeway Ramp Meter Queuing Analysis Ramp meters are proposed at five entrance ramps under Alternative 3. Table 2.7.AI summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps for Alternative 3. Based on these data, the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate. Therefore, no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Weave-Merge Analysis Table 2.7.AJ summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour freeway weave- merge level of service between Main Street and Franklin Road and Franklin Road and Railroad Canyon Road under Alternative 3. As Table 2.7.AJ indicates, both the southbound and northbound freeway weave-merges are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-35 Table 2.7.AG: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 3 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C D I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C D Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive C C Franklin Street/SB Ramps B B Franklin Street/NB Ramps B A Franklin Street at Camino Del Norte A A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps A C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps B B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive C E Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps B D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C B Main Street/Camino Del Norte B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp C D Franklin Street Exit Ramp C D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp E E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp C F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Franklin Street Exit Ramp D D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Main Street Exit Ramp D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 23, Table 14, and Table 32 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-36 Table 2.7.AH: 2040 Queue Lengths, Alternative 3 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 835 138 318 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 820 232 319 No Franklin Street SB Exit Ramp 685 69 320 No Franklin Street NB Exit Ramp 535 47 42 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp 500 133 130 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 61 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Table 2.7.AI: 2040 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 3 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 811 589 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,409 1,120 No Franklin Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 356 372 No Franklin Street NB Entrance Ramp 960 467 337 No Main Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 461 503 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 62 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Table 2.7.AJ: 2040 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 3 Freeway Segment Weave Distance (ft) Peak Hour Level of Service A.M. P.M. Southbound (I-15) Main Street Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,000 C D (I-15) Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 4,020 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) (I-15) Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Bundy Canyon Exit Ramp 11,680 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Northbound (I-15) Bundy Canyon Entrance Ramp to Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 11,820 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) (I-15) Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,700 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) (I-15)Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Main Street Exit Ramp 2,005 D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 37 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet LOS = level of service ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE—SUMMARY Table 2.7.AK and Table 2.7.AL provide a comparison of Alternative 3, the No Build Alternative in opening year (2019) and future year (2040) against baseline (2013) conditions. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-37 Table 2.7.AK: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 3 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/ Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 3 (2019) Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 3 (2019) I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road C C C C D D Soutbound Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street C C C D E E Northbound Bundy Canyn Road to Railroad Canyon Road C C C C D D Northbound Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street D D D C D D Intersection Franklin Street at Avenue 6- Stop Condition B B B C C C Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A A A A A Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps* — — — — — — Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps* — — — — — — Franklin Street Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive B A A B B B Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive* — — — — — — Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B C B C D B Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B C B C C B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D D B E F B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E E B F F B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F C F F D Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps C D D B F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C F F C F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte B C C C E E Ramp Junction Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp C D D D F F Franklin Street Southbound Exit Ramp* - - - - - - Franklin Street Southbound Entrance Ramp* - - - - - - Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D D B E F F Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp D D C D D D Bundy Canyon Rounad Southbound Exit Ramp D D D C E E Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D D D D D D Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D D C D D C Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-38 Table 2.7.AK: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 3 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/ Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 3 (2019) Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 3 (2019) Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D E D D D D Franklin Street Northbound Exit Ramp* - - - - - - Franklin Street Northbound Entrance Ramp* - - - - - - Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp D E E D D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16 and 17, Table 1, 2, and 4, Table 24, 25 and 26 (November 2014). Note: * These locations do not exist under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that these locations would reduce the amount of congestion on I-15 or on local streets. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Table 2.7.AL: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 3 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/ Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 3 (2040) Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 3 (2040) I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road C E C C F D Southbound Casino Road- Railroad Canyon Road to to Franklin Street* C E C D F D Southbound Franklin Street to Main Street C D Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road C E C C F D Northbound Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street* D F C C F C Northbound Franklin Street to Main Street* C C Intersection Franklin Street-Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B B - C F - Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A C A B C Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps* - - B - - B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps* - - B - - A Franklin Street/Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive (Stop Condition) B B - B C - Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive* - - A - - A Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-39 Table 2.7.AL: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 3 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/ Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 3 (2040) Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 3 (2040) Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B E B C F C Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive B E B C F B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D F A E F C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E F B F F B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F C F F E Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps C F B B F D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C F C C F B Main Street/Camino Del Norte B F B C F C Ramp Junction Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp C F C D F D Franklin Street Southbound Exit Ramp* - - C - - D Franklin Street Southbound Entrance Ramp* - - C - - D Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D E E E F E Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp D F C D F D Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D E C C F F Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D F D D F D Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D F C D F C Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D F C D F D Franklin Street Northbound Exit Ramp* - - D - - D Franklin Street Northbound Entrance Ramp* - - C - - C Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp D F D D F D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16, 22, and 23, Table 1, 12, and 14, Table 24, 31 and 32 (November 2014). Note: * These locations do not exist under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that these locations would reduce the amount of congestion on I-15 or on local streets. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-40 Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Facilities Within the project limits, existing nonstandard curb ramps would be upgraded to conform to ADA requirements. New curb ramps would meet ADA requirements. In addition, any new sidewalks that are proposed would be designed per ADA standards and requirements. These features would improve pedestrian access at both interchanges. Railroad Canyon Road is identified as a Class II bicycle facility. Any new bicycle facility features proposed would also be incorporated into the project design. This would be consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and would improve bicycle access in the interchange areas. ALTERNATIVE 4-PHASE 1: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE OPENING YEAR (2019) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.AM summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for study area freeway segments for Alternative 4-Phase 1. During the a.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or better. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.AM summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the study intersections under Alternative 4-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.AM, the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road at Grape Street-Summerhill Drive is projected to improve to LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersections of Railroad Canyon Road (Casino Drive-Auto Center Drive and Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive) are projected to operate at LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Main Street intersections (Camino Del Norte, I-15 northbound ramps, and I-15 southbound ramps) are projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All intersections of Franklin Street (Avenue 6, Auto Center Drive, and Grunder Drive-Canyon View Estates) are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.AM summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15, Main Street/I-15, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 4-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.AM, all northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. peak hour, and the southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, all northbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AN summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps (Railroad Canyon Road Northbound and Southbound Exit Ramps and Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp) for Alternative 4-Phase 1. The analysis revealed that no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-41 Table 2.7.AM: 2019 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 1 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C E Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D D Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B C Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) A B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive A B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive A A Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B A Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps A A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive A B Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) D F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) C E Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp D F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp B F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp D E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Main Street Exit Ramp E D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 17, Table, 5, and Table 26 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-42 Table 2.7.AN: 2019 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 750 110 111 No Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 750 26.3 69.3 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 639 584 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 44 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Ramp Meter Queuing Ramp meters are proposed at two entrance ramps under Alternative 4-Phase 1. Table 2.7.AO summarizes the opening year (2019) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. The analysis revealed the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate and that queuing would not occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak period. Table 2.7.AO: 2019 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4-Phase 1 Intersection Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 757 561 No Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,286 991 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 45 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. ALTERNATIVE 4-PHASE 1: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE FAILURE YEAR (2025) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.AP identifies level of service for I-15 mainline segments in failure year (2025) conditions under Alternative 4-Phase 1. All but one southbound mainline freeway segment would operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, and all but one northbound freeway segment would operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-43 Table 2.7.AP: 2025 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 1 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) D D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) D F Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) D D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) E D Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B D Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A Franklin Street at Canyon View Dr-Grunder Dr (Stop Condition) B B Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive A D Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive A B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B E Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps A A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive B B Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) F F Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp D F Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C F Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp D E Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D E Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Main Street Exit Ramp E E Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 19, Table 8 and Table 28 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.AP summarizes the 2025 a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the study intersections under Alternative 4-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.AP, all of the Franklin Street intersections (at Avenue 6, Auto Center Drive, and Canyon View Drive-Grunder Drive), are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. All five of the Railroad Canyon Road intersections are projected to operate at LOS B or better during the a.m. peak hour. All three of the Main Street intersections are projected to operate LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak period. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-44 Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.AP summarizes the failure year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15, Main Street/I-15, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas under Altern ative 4-Phase 1. As identified in Table 2.7.AP, all southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS C or worse during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All of the northbound freeway ramps are expected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AQ summarizes the failure year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps (Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp) under Alternative 4-Phase 1. The analysis revealed that queuing would occur on the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, as well as on the Railroad Canyon Southbound Exit Ramp during the p.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.AQ: 2025 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 750 159 1,163 Yes- P.M., No-A.M. Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 750 32 112 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp (Stop Condition) 955 1,394 1,098 Yes Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 50 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Entrance Ramp Metering Queuing Ramp meters are proposed at two entrance ramps under Alternative 4-Phase 1. Table 2.7.AR summarizes the failure year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. Based on these data, the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate for either entrance ramp during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.AR: 2025 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4-Phase 1 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 843 624 No Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,432 1,104 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 51 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-45 Freeway Weave-Merge No weaving analysis was conducted because no weaving section in the study area is less than 2,500 ft in length for the existing condition. The Bundy Canyon Road interchange ramps are located more than 12,000 ft to the south of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange ramps, and the Main Street interchange ramps are located more than 6,500 ft to the north. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum length for which a weaving analysis is conducted is 2,500 ft. Beyond this length, merge and diverge areas are considered separately using the Ramps and Ramp Junctions methodology. ALTERNATIVE 4-PHASE 2: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE OPENING YEAR (2025) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7.AS provides level of service for each mainline I-15 segment in the opening year (2025) with the Alternative 4-Phase 2 improvements. As Table 2.7.AS indicates, during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, both the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C or better. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.AS summarizes the opening year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the study intersections under Alternative -Phase 2. As identified in Table 2.7.AS, all of the Franklin Street intersections (at Auto Center Drive, Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Camino Del Norte), are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Four of the five Railroad Canyon Road intersections (at Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive, Casino Road-Auto Center Drive, I-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive) are projected to operate at LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All three of the Main Street intersections (at the Southbound and Northbound Ramps, and Camino Del Norte) are projected to operate LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.AS summarizes the opening year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the Railroad Canyon/I-15, Main Street/I-15, and I-15/Bundy Canyon Road freeway ramp influence areas under Alternative 4-Phase 2. As identified in Table 2.7.AS, all but one southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. All of the northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AT summarizes the future year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for five exit ramps (Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, the Franklin Street Southbound and Northbound Exit Ramps, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp) under Alternative 4-Phase 2. The analysis revealed that no queuing would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Freeway Entrance Ramp Metering Queuing Ramp meters are proposed at five entrance ramps under Alternative 4-Phase 2. Table 2.7.AU summarizes the opening year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. Based on these data, the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate. Therefore, no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-46 Table 2.7.AS: 2025 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 2 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) B C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) B C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) B C Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) B B I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) B B Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive C C Franklin Street/SB Ramps B B Franklin Street/NB Ramps B A Franklin Street at Camino Del Norte A A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive A C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive A A Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps A B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps A A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive A B Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) B C Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) C C Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp B C Franklin Street Exit Ramp C C Franklin Street Entrance Ramp B C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C D Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp B C Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp B C Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp B B Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C C Franklin Street Exit Ramp C C Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Main Street Exit Ramp C C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 21, Table 11 and Table 30 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-47 Table 2.7.AT: 2025 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4-Phase 2 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 750 66 167 No Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 750 20 36 No Franklin Street SB Exit Ramp 685 102 223 No Franklin Street NB Exit Ramp 535 82 62 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp 500 182 217 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 56 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Table 2.7.AU: 2025 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4-Phase 2 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 811 589 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,409 1,120 No Franklin Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 356 372 No Franklin Street NB Entrance Ramp 960 467 337 No Main Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 461 503 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 57 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Freeway Weave-Merge Table 2.7.AV summarizes the opening year (2025) a.m. and p.m. peak hour freeway weave- merge LOS between Main Street and Franklin Road and Franklin Road and Railroad Canyon Road under Alternative 4-Phase 2. As Table 2.7.AV indicates, both the southbound and northbound freeway weave-merges are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of one southbound freeway weave-merge during the p.m. peak hour. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-48 Table 2.7.AV: 2025 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 4-Phase 2 Freeway Segment Weave Distance (ft) Peak Hour Level of Service A.M. P.M. I-15 Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,000 B C Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 2,260 B D Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Bundy Canyon Exit Ramp 12,590 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) I-15 Northbound Bundy Canyon Entrance Ramp to Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 11,820 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,700 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Main Street Exit Ramp 2,005 C B Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 35 (November 2014). LOS = level of service NB = northbound SB = southbound ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE DESIGN YEAR (2040) ANALYSIS Freeway Mainline Table 2.7AW provides level of service for each mainline I-15 segment in design year (2040) with the Alternative 4 improvements. As Table 2.7.AW indicates, during the a.m. peak hour, the northbound and southbound freeway segments in the study area are projected to operate at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour, all freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.7.AW summarizes the 2040 a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the study intersections under Alternative 4. As identified in Table 2.7.AW, all four intersections of Franklin Street are expected to operate at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak period. The five Railroad Canyon Road intersections are all expected to operate at LOS B or better during the a.m. peak period and at LOS C or better during the p.m. peak period. The three Main Street intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak period hours. Freeway Ramps Table 2.7.AW summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour level of service for the freeway ramps that would be affected by Alternative 4. As Table 2.7.AW indicates, all northbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, and the southbound freeway ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, with the exception of the southbound Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp, which would operate at a level LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-49 Table 2.7.AW: 2040 Mainline/Intersection/Freeway Ramp Levels of Service, Alternative 4 Freeway Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C D I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C D I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C D Northbound I-15 (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) C C I-15 (Railroad Canyon Road to Main Street) C C I-15 (Franklin Street to Main Street) C C Intersection Franklin Street/Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive C C Franklin Street/SB Ramps B B Franklin Street/NB Ramps B A Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte A A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive B C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive A B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps B C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps A A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive B C Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps (Stop Condition) B D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps (Stop Condition) C B Main Street/Camino Del Norte (Stop Condition) B C Ramp Junction Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp C D Franklin Street Exit Ramp C D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp E E Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Bundy Canyon Road Exit Ramp C F Northbound Bundy Canyon Road Entrance Ramp D D Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp C C Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp C D Franklin Street Exit Ramp D D Franklin Street Entrance Ramp C C Main Street Exit Ramp D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 23, Table 15 and Table 32 (November 2014). I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-50 Freeway Exit Ramp Queuing Table 2.7.AX summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing lengths for all exit ramps (Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp, Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Northbound Exit Ramp, the Franklin Street Southbound and Northbound Exit Ramps, and the Main Street Northbound Exit Ramps) under Alternative 4. The analysis revealed that no queuing would occur during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.AX: 2040 Queue Lengths, Alternative 4 Ramp Junction Available Storage (ft) Queuing Length (ft) Queue Exceeds Pocket? A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Railroad Canyon Road SB Exit Ramp 750 135 576 No Railroad Canyon Road NB Exit Ramp 750 30 70 No Franklin Street SB Exit Ramp 685 69 320 No Franklin Street NB Exit Ramp 535 47 42 No Main Street NB Exit Ramp 500 133 130 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 63 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet NB = northbound SB = southbound Freeway Ramp Meter Queuing Analysis Ramp meters are proposed at five entrance ramps under Alternative 4. Table 2.7.AY summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour queuing on the entrance ramps. Based on these data, the Total Ramp Demand does not exceed the Total Ramp Meter Rate. Therefore, no queuing would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 2.7.AY: 2040 Entrance Ramp Meter Queuing Summary, Alternative 4 Ramp Junction Total Ramp Meter Rate (VPH) Peak Hour Demand Exceeds Rate? A.M. P.M. Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road SB Entrance Ramp 1,440 811 589 No Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road NB Entrance Ramp 1,440 1,409 1,120 No Franklin Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 356 372 No Franklin Street NB Entrance Ramp 960 467 337 No Main Street SB Entrance Ramp 960 461 503 No Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 64 (November 2014). NB = northbound SB = southbound VPH = vehicles per hour Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-51 Freeway Weave-Merge Table 2.7.AZ summarizes the design year (2040) a.m. and p.m. peak hour freeway weave- merge LOS between Main Street and Franklin Road and Franklin Road and Railroad Canyon Road under Alternative 4. As Table 2.7.AZ indicates, both the southbound and northbound freeway weave-merges are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the southbound freeway weave-merge between Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road during the p.m. peak hour. Table 2.7.AZ: 2040 Freeway Weave-Merge Levels of Service, Alternative 4 Freeway Segment Weave Distance (ft) Peak Hour Level of Service A.M. P.M. Southbound (I-15) Main Street Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,000 C D (I-15) Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Casino Road- Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 2,260 C E (I-15) Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Bundy Canyon Exit Ramp 12,590 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) Northbound (I-15) Bundy Canyon Entrance Ramp to Grape Street- Railroad Canyon Road Exit Ramp 11,820 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) (I-15) Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road Entrance Ramp to Franklin Street Exit Ramp 2,700 See Ramp Merge-Diverge LOS (weave length greater than 2,500 ft) (I-15)Franklin Street Entrance Ramp to Main Street Exit Ramp 2,005 D C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 36 (November 2014). ft = foot/feet I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE—SUMMARY Tables 2.7.BA and 2.7.BB provide a comparison of Alternative 4, the No Build Alternative in opening year (2019) and design year (2040) against baseline (2013) conditions. Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Facilities Within the project limits, existing nonstandard curb ramps would be upgraded to conform to ADA requirements. New curb ramps would meet ADA requirements. In addition, all new sidewalks that are proposed along local roadways would be designed per ADA standards and requirements. These features would improve pedestrian access at both interchanges. Railroad Canyon Road is identified as a Class II bicycle facility and new bicycle facility features proposed would also be incorporated into the project design. This would be consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and would improve bicycle access in the interchange areas. The following measures apply to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-52 Table 2.7.BA: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 4 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 4 (2019) Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 4 (2019) I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road C C C C D D Southbound Caisno Road-Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street* C C C D E E Southbound Franklin Street to Main Street Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road C C C C D D Northbound Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street* D D D C D D Northbound Franklin Street to Main Street* Intersection Franklin Street at Avenue 6 (Stop Condition) B B B C C C Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A A A A A Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps* — — — — — — Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps* — — — — — — Franklin Street/Canyon View Drive- Grunder Drive B A A B B B Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte- Canyon Estates Drive* — — — — — — Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail- Lake Shore Drive B C A C D B Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road- Auto Center Drive B C A C C A Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D D B E F A Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E E A F F A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F A F F B Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps C D D B F F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C F F C F F Main Street/Camino Del Norte B C C C E E Ramp Junction Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp C D D D F F Franklin Street Southbound Exit Ramp* - - - - - - Franklin Street Southbound Entrance Ramp* - - - - - - Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D D B E F F Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp D D C D D D Bundy Canyon Rounad Southbound Exit Ramp D D D C E E Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-53 Table 2.7.BA: 2019 Operations Improvements of Alternative 4 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 4 (2019) Baseline (2013) No Build (2019) Alternative 4 (2019) Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D D D D D D Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D D C D D C Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D E D D D D Franklin Street Northbound Exit Ramp* - - - - - - Franklin Street Northbound Entrance Ramp* - - - - - - Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp D E E D D D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16 and 17, Table 1,2, and 5, Table 24, 25 and 26 (November 2014). * These locations do not exist under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that these locations would reduce the amount of congestion on I-15 or on local streets. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-54 Table 2.7.BB: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 4 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013 No Build (2040) Alternative 4 (2040) Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 4 (2040) I-15 Mainline Segment Southbound Bundy Canyon Road to Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road C E C C F D Southbound Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road to to Franklin Street* C E C D F D Southbound Franklin Street to Main Street C D Northbound Bundy Canyon Road to Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road C E C C F D Northbound Grape Street-Railroad Canyon Road to Franklin Street* D F C C F C Northbound Franklin Street to Main Street* C C Intersection Franklin Street-Avenut 6 (Stop Condition) B B C C F C Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive A A - A B - Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps* - - B - - B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps* - - B - - A Franklin Street/Canyon View-Grunder Drive (Stop Condition) B B - B C - Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte- Canyon Estates Drive* - - A - - A Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail- Lake Shore Drive B E B C F C Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road- Auto Center Drive B E A C F B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps D F B E F C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps E F A F F A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street/Summerhill Drive F F B F F C Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps C F B B F D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps C F C C F B Main Street/Camino Del Norte B F B C F C Ramp Junction Main Street Southbound Entrance Ramp C F C D F D Franklin Street Southbound Exit Ramp* - - C - - D Franklin Street Southbound Entrance Ramp* - - C - - D Casino Road-Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D E E E F E Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-55 Table 2.7.BB: 2040 Operations Improvements of Alternative 4 When Compared to the No Build Alternative and Baseline (2013) Conditions I-15 Segment/Intersection/Ramp Junction A.M. Level of Service P.M. Level of Service Baseline (2013 No Build (2040) Alternative 4 (2040) Baseline (2013) No Build (2040) Alternative 4 (2040) Railroad Canyon Road Southbound Entrance Ramp D F C D F D Bundy Canyon Road Southbound Exit Ramp D E C C F F Bundy Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D F D D F D Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Exit Ramp D F C D F C Railroad Canyon Road Northbound Entrance Ramp D F C D F D Franklin Street Northbound Exit Ramp* - - D - - D Franklin Street Northbound Entrance Ramp* - - C - - C Main Street Northbound Exit Ramp D F D D F D Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, Table 16, 22 and 23, Table 1, 12, and 15, Table 24, 31 and 32 (November 2014). * These locations do not exist under the No Build Alternative. However, it is anticipated that these locations would reduce the amount of congestion on I-15 or on local streets. I-15 = Interstate 15 NB = northbound SB = southbound CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: XVI. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of improvements to existing roadways and freeway interchanges. Implementation of the project would not cause an increase in traffic that would result in a deficient level of service at intersections or along freeway segments. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. XVI. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to CEQA Response a) above. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-56 XVI. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project consists of roadway and freeway interchange improvements. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. XVI. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed roadway and freeway interchange improvements would not increase hazards due to design features as the construction of the project would be required to adhere to Caltrans design standards. However, there are existing non-standard curb ramps in the project vicinity that would be required to be updated to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for accessibility. No additional access or roadway improvements have been proposed that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). To ensure that the project would be designed to ADA requirements, Minimization Measures TR-2 and TR-3, which are standard conditions presented below in Section 2.7.4, have been identified. Adherence to Minimization Measures TR-2 and TR-3 would ensure impacts remain less than significant. XVI. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the project would result in temporary road detours and access restrictions during construction, which may result in some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response. However, significant disruptions to the local access network within the study area are not anticipated with implementation of a TMP. Adherence to Minimization Measure TR-1, a standard condition presented below in Section 2.14.4, would ensure impacts remain less than significant related to emergency access. XVI. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. The existing freeway facility currently does not conflict with programs or policies pertaining to alternative transportation. The proposed roadway and interchange improvements would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. 2.7.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Minimization Measures TR-1 A detailed Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared during the final design phase of the project. The objective of the TMP is to minimize the potential impacts that construction activities may have on the traveling public and emergency services providers. Preparation of the TMP shall be coordinated with the emergency services providers in the project vicinity to minimize response delays resulting from traffic delays, temporary ramp and lane closures, and detours during project construction. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-57 The TMP for the project shall include the following elements and strategies: 1. Traffic control plans and related specifications, to be completed during final design of the project, shall be developed in accordance with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (also referred to as the WATCH manual), Section 5 of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Manual, Caltrans Standard Plans, and applicable City of Lake Elsinore requirements. These plans and specifications shall include elements such as advance roadside signs and portable changeable message signs; traffic surveillance; lane/shoulder closures; and temporary signing/striping on local streets, the Interstate 15 (I-15) ramps, and the I-15 mainline. Temporary overnight lane closures of I-15 and the on- and off-ramps are anticipated during construction. Lane closures along the mainline, which would be limited to the nighttime, would be coordinated with Caltrans. Signal timing may be adjusted along the detour routes to enhance traffic operations. 2. The project shall implement a Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program and use California Highway Patrol officers to enforce lane closures and provide a visual deterrent to errant/speeding vehicles. 3. The project shall implement a Public Awareness Campaign (PAC). Although any lane closures would occur at night, there would still be a potential temporary impact to vehicles traveling through the construction zone. The purpose of this PAC is to keep the surrounding community abreast of the project’s progress and construction activities that could affect the public’s travel plans and to minimize delays or confusion to the motoring public during construction activities. Mailers/flyers and local newspaper advertising shall be used to disseminate this information. 4. The project shall implement a Construction Freeway Service Patrol (CFSP) program. The CFSP shall provide tow truck service to aid stranded motorists and remove disabled vehicles from the traveled way or shoulders. 5. The project shall implement the following construction strategies to minimize construction-related impacts: a. Perform major construction activities at off-peak hours, such as at night or during the weekends, when feasible and reasonable. b. Finalize ramp closure charts during the final design phase. During final design, the proposed lane and ramp closures shall be presented to Caltrans Lane Closures Review Committee for approval. c. Coordinate construction with adjacent projects. Coordination is important to address possible temporary increases in traffic due to detours from adjacent projects. Construction of the adjacent projects is anticipated to be completed prior to construction of the project. d. All ramp reconstruction and local street and freeway widening shall be constructed in stages to minimize disruption. 6. The project shall include contingency plans that specify the actions that shall be taken in the event that something unexpected occurs with respect to construction activities or traffic operations. The contractor shall review these plans and incorporate them into the contractor’s contingency plan. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-58 TR-2 Construction of the project will include provisions for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction. TR-3 Existing nonstandard curb ramps will be upgraded to conform to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Additionally, minimum-width 5-foot sidewalks will be incorporated into the design to provide ADA-required access. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.7-59 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-1 2.8 Visual/Aesthetics 2.8.1 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 a 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 regarding 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. Likewise, 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]) 2.8.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following document prepared for the project: Visual Impact Assessment I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project (VIA) (July 2015) The VIA follows the recommended methodology in the publication “Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects” (FHWA, March 1981). 2.8.2.1 Visual Setting The project area is located in Riverside County on Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 0.5 mile east of downtown Lake Elsinore and is situated within Lake Elsinore Valley along the base of the Sedco Hills and Steele Peak. The topography is relatively flat to rolling terrain with elevations ranging from approximately 1,280 to 1,460 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl). The landscape is characterized by the Elsinore and Santa Ana Mountains to the west and encompasses hills, valleys, riparian communities, boulders/rock outcroppings, naturalized grasses, oak trees, sycamores and Peruvian pepper trees lining roadways. The land use characteristic within the corridor is primarily semi-urban—coupled with residential, commercial, and open space. Vegetation within the project area has been affected by the existing I-15 infrastructure, paved and dirt roadways, residential and commercial development, off-road vehicle use, and disking. Vegetation communities within the study area consist of disturbed/ruderal, disturbed Riversidean sage scrub, southern willow scrub, willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and ornamental. The dominant vegetation community within the study area is disturbed/ruderal and this vegetation community occurs within disked areas heavily disturbed by development. Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub primarily occurs within the northern portion of the project area north and south of Grunder Drive, and along the margins and slopes of I-15. Southern willow scrub, willow scrub, and mule fat scrub are present within the banks of the San Jacinto River and within a concrete-lined drainage channel at I-15, along the Main Street southbound off-ramp. Ornamental vegetation occurs within the northwestern portion of the project area along the margins of I-15 and at the I-15/Main Street interchange. The City of Lake Elsinore (City) General Plan (2011) Land Use Element and Open Space Element include the following policies to protect visual resources that are relevant to the planned I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project: Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-2 Land Use Element Policy 1.1 Promote innovative site design, and encourage the preservation of unique natural features, such as steep slopes, watercourses, canyons, ridgelines, rock formations, and open space with recreational opportunities. Policy 3.2 Encourage new commercial and/or industrial development incorporate buffers which minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility, or activity and vehicular traffic on residential uses and MSHCP conservation areas. Open Space Element Policy 1.4 Encourage revegetation with native plants compatible with natural surrounding habitat where soil have been disturbed during construction, and discourage plants identified in the MSHCP as unsuitable for conservation areas. Policy 3.4 Preserve the City's visual character, in particular the surrounding hillsides, which topographically define the lake region. The I-15 corridor is an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, this corridor is not an Officially Designated State Highway. Railroad Canyon Road is not a designated scenic highway within the project boundaries, nor is the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange located within designated scenic vistas. Additionally, Franklin Street is not a designated scenic highway, nor is this overcrossing located within a designated scenic vista. 2.8.2.2 Visual Assessment Units The project corridor was divided into a series of "outdoor rooms" or visual assessment units. Each visual assessment unit has its own visual character and visual quality. It is typically defined by the limits of a particular viewshed. For this project, the following four visual assessment units and their associated key views have been identified: TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR VISUAL ASSESSMENT UNIT The Transportation Corridor Assessment Unit, represented by Key Views 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 includes I-15, Railroad Canyon Road, and Franklin Street. I-15 is an urban corridor and includes urban elements such as lighting, signage, and landscaping. Most properties adjacent to Franklin Street are undeveloped and do not contain urban elements. Views are limited to the corridors themselves with the exception of the Franklin Street overcrossing, which provides distant views of the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountain on the west and the rolling hills on the east. COMMERCIAL ASSESSMENT UNIT The Commercial Assessment Unit, represented by Key Views 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 includes views of I-15 and Grape Street. The Commercial Assessment Unit consists of commercial retail buildings (big box and pads), restaurants, financial institutions, and a large parking lot within the southeast quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. The parking lot is surrounded by shrubs and small trees. Views within this landscape unit are primarily of the adjacent development, Grape Street, the Railroad Canyon Road on-ramps and off-ramps, I-15, and the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-3 CAR DEALERSHIP ASSESSMENT UNIT The Car Dealership Assessment Unit, represented by Key View 1, is located in the southwest quadrant of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. The dealership property consists of a parking lot and a building with a showroom and offices. The area surrounding the dealership includes ruderal vegetation, a parking lot, utility poles, residential land uses, Franklin Street, and Casino Drive. Views are limited to the adjacent development and adjacent roadways including I-15. This area is developed, and there are no particular areas that provide opportunities for extended views. Views are limited to the adjacent development and adjacent roadways including I-15. RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT UNIT The Residential Assessment Unit, represented by Key Views 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, is located in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange and within the southeast quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. This unit is characterized by residential streets and residential properties, utility poles and wires, and ornamental vegetation. This unit includes the views from Canyon View Drive, Avenue Six, and Grape Street. 2.8.2.3 Key Views Because it is not feasible to analyze all the views in which the project would be seen, it is necessary to select a number of key views associated with visual assessment units that would most clearly demonstrate the change in the project’s visual resources (see Figure 2.8.1). Key views also represent the viewer groups that have the highest potential to be affected by the project considering exposure and sensitivity. The following describes eleven key views and the viewer groups that are represented: KEY VIEW NO. 1 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.2, Key View No. 1 is a view from a residential perspective and is taken from a vacant area zoned for residential uses. This view faces the future location of the Franklin Street overcrossing and faces the Car Dealership Assessment Unit. The dominant features in this key view are the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains located in the background. Land cover includes I-15, freeway right-of-way fencing, and a car dealership building and sign. Vegetation visible within this key view consists of ruderal plants, grasses, and single tree stands located on the both sides of I-15. Many encroachment features including freeway traffic, overhead power lines, and a fence create a view with a low intactness. KEY VIEW NO. 2 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.2, Key View No. 2 is a view from a residential perspective and is taken from the northwest quadrant of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange site in an area zoned for residential uses. This view faces east toward I-15 and the existing Franklin Street overcrossing and faces the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit. Visible land cover from this vantage point consists of manmade development and vegetation within and adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. Land cover consists mostly of I-15, the existing Franklin Street overcrossing and vegetation that includes trees on both sides of I-15. Encroaching features include power poles and lines, an antennae tower and water quality detention basins in the midground. There is a large expanse of graded area in the foreground within this vantage point creating a pattern with low intactness. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-4 This page intentionally left blank Key View LocationsSOURCE: Bing A erial, 2015. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-8-1_KeyViewLoc.mxd (12/21/2015) FIGURE 2.8.1 S!!N 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Project Study Area ¬Photograph Location and Direction Taken 0 750 1,500 Feet Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-6 This page intentionally left blank Key Views 1 & 2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-2_Key_Views_1&2.cdr (10/09/2015) Key View 2: View facing east toward the future Franklin Street Interchange from the west of I-15. F I G U R E 2 .8 .2 Key View 1: View facing southwest toward the future Franklin Street Interchange from the east of I-15. SOURCE: Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-8 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-9 KEY VIEW NO. 3 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.3, Key View No. 3 is view from a residential perspective and is taken from the northwest quadrant of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. This view faces northeast toward the hills and the future Franklin Street overcrossing and faces the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit. Land cover consists of a single roadway and I-15 (evident solely due to the presence of vehicles). The hills in the background are the dominant feature from this vantage point and are clearly visible. Other elements include passing vehicles along I-15. Shrubs and ruderal vegetation add texture to this key view, but do not represent a high visual value due to lack of abundance, vibrant colors, or mosaic pattern. Encroaching features include power poles and lines, an antennae tower, a billboard, and water quality detention basins. KEY VIEW NO. 4 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.3, Key View No. 4 is a view from a residential perspective and is taken from the southwest quadrant of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange. This view faces northwest toward the future Franklin Street overcrossing located beyond the vacant property and faces the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit. The dominant features in this view are the hills to the north and the green foliage of the sparse vegetation alongside I-15. The streetlights and signals, billboard, and power poles and lines are encroaching elements that reduce the cohesiveness of this view. The sky and the trees add visual value to the manmade and natural components of this view. KEY VIEW NO. 5 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.4, Key View No. 5 is a view from a residential perspective taken from the area along Canyon View Drive in the southeast quadrant of the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange. This view faces west toward I-15 and the future Franklin Street overcrossing and faces the Residential Assessment Unit. The foreground is dominated by manmade development and consists mostly of residential units, Canyon View Drive in the center, sidewalk, fencing, utility poles, street signs, and trees. The background view comprises a small knoll, vegetated hills, and the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains in the distance. The hills and the mountains are highly contrasting landscape elements. KEY VIEW NO. 6 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.4, Key View No. 6 is a view from a commercial perspective taken from the commercial center located on Grape Street in the southeast quadrant of the I-15/ Railroad Canyon Road interchange. This view faces northwest toward the existing Railroad Canyon Road interchange and represents the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit, Commercial Assessment Unit, and the Residential Assessment Unit. The key components within this view are the city monument sign, medium-sized trees in the center of the photo, Grape Street in the foreground, I-15 and vehicles traveling it, freeway signs, a streetlight, residences, the car dealership, local hills, and the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains in the background. Lake Elsinore is visible in the background at the far left near the foot of the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains. Ornamental vegetation gives this view aesthetic value and adds a positive contrast to the surrounding manmade development. Manmade development within this view consists of paved roadways, sidewalk, median, a light pole, commercial and residential land uses, and water quality detention basins. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-10 This page intentionally left blank Key Views 3 & 4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-3_Key_Views_3&4.cdr (10/09/2015) Key View 4: View facing north toward the future Franklin Street Interchange from west of I-15. F I G U R E 2 .8 .3 Key View 3: View facing northeast toward the future Franklin Street Interchange from west of I-15. SOURCE: Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-12 This page intentionally left blank Key View 5: View facing west toward the future Franklin Street Interchange. The photograph is taken from the residential area along Canyon View Drive from east of I-15. Key View 6: View facing northwest toward the existing Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. The photograph is taken from the commercial area along Grape Street from east of I-15. F I G U R E 2 .8 .4 Key Views 5 & 6 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-4_Key_Views_5&6.cdr (10/12/2015) SOURCE: Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-14 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-15 KEY VIEW NO. 7 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.5, Key View No. 7 is a view taken from the commercial center located on Grape Street in the southeast quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. This view faces northwest toward the existing Railroad Canyon interchange and faces the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit, Commercial Assessment Unit, and the Residential Assessment Unit. The key components within this view are the medium-sized tree in the center of the photo, Grape Street in the foreground, Railroad Canyon Road northbound off- ramp, the Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing at I-15, the I-15 freeway and vehicles along I-15, and the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains in the background. Ornamental vegetation and the presence of scenic features (hills and mountains) give this view aesthetic value and add a positive contrast to the surrounding manmade development. Manmade development within this view consists of paved roadways, traffic signs, commercial and residential land uses, and water quality detention basins. KEY VIEW NO. 8 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.5, Key View No. 8 is a view from a residential perspective taken from the residences located on Grape Street in the southeast quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. This view faces northwest toward the existing Railroad Canyon interchange and represents the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit, Commercial Assessment Unit, and the Residential Landscape Unit. The key components within this view are Grape Street in the foreground, the I-15 freeway, freeway right-of-way vegetation, streetlights, residences, commercial buildings, and the ornamental vegetation along Grape Street. The Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains are partially visible to the left while the local hills are more evident. KEY VIEW NO. 9 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.6, Key View No. 9 is a view taken from the commercial businesses located on Casino Drive in the southwest quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. This view faces northeast toward the existing commercial businesses on Casino Drive and represents the Commercial Assessment Unit. The key components within this view are the ornamental trees and the existing commercial buildings. Casino Drive is visible in the foreground. This view contains water quality detention basins with metal standpipes, concrete headwalls, rip rap, chain link fencing and native grasses that do not provide memorability of this view. The encroachment features (utility poles) create a chaotic pattern on the sky that reduces the overall integrity of this view; however, the presence of trees adds to the positive visual quality of this view. KEY VIEW NO. 10 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.6, Key View No. 10 is a view from a commuter perspective taken from the I-15 just north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing looking north toward the future Franklin Street interchange. This view faces north and represents the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit. The key components within this view are I-15, vehicles traveling along I-15, and the hills to the east and mountains to the west. There are isolated trees along the west side of I-15 and ruderal vegetation along either side of the freeway and within the freeway median. Additionally, utility poles and lines and a billboard are also visible from this viewpoint. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-16 This page intentionally left blank Key View 7: View facing northwest toward the existing Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. The photograph is taken from the commercial area along Grape Street from east of I-15. Key View 8: View facing northwest toward the existing Railroad Canyon Road Interchange. The photograph is taken from the commercial area along Grape Street from east of I-15. F I G U R E 2 .8 .5 Key Views 7 & 8 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-5_Key_Views_7&8.cdr (10/09/2015) SOURCE: Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-18 This page intentionally left blank Key View 9: View facing east toward the existing commercial properties along Casino Drive from west of I-15. Key View 10: View facing north toward the future Franklin Street Interchange. The photograph is taken from the I-15 northbound lanes. F I G U R E 2 .8 .6 Key Views 9 & 10 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-6_Key_Views_9&10.cdr (10/09/2015) SOURCE: Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-20 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-21 KEY VIEW NO. 11 As illustrated in Figure 2.8.7, Key View No. 11 is visible from Railroad Canyon Road and Auto Center Drive looking east towards the I-15 overcrossing. This view represents the Transportation Corridor Visual Assessment Unit as viewed from the commuter viewer group. The dominant features in this key view are the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains located in the background. The key components within this view are the I-15 overcrossing, utility poles and lines and the businesses along Railroad Canyon Road in this viewpoint. This view contains water quality detention basins with metal standpipes, concrete headwalls, rip rap, chain link fencing and native grasses that do not provide memorability of this view. 2.8.2.4 Viewer Groups The population affected by the project is composed of viewers. Viewers are people whose views of the landscape may be altered by the project—either because the landscape itself has changed or their perception of the landscape has changed. There are two major types of viewer groups for highway projects: highway neighbors (Views to the Road) and highway users (Views from the Road). For this project the following highway neighbors and highway users were considered: HIGHWAY NEIGHBORS (VIEWS TO THE ROAD) Residents in the northeast quadrant of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange Residents in the southwest quadrant of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange Commercial users associated with local businesses HIGHWAY USERS (VIEWS FROM THE ROAD) Local motorists Regional travelers/tourists Commercial drivers 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 its responses to visual changes. 2.8.2.5 Viewer Response Viewer response is a measure or prediction of the viewer’s reaction to changes in the visual environment and has two dimensions, viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure is a measure of the viewer’s ability to see a particular object. Viewer sensitivity is a measure of the viewer’s recognition of a particular object. VIEWER EXPOSURE Viewer Exposure has three attributes defined as follows: Location relates to the position of the viewer in relationship to the object being viewed. Quantity refers to how many people see the object. Duration refers to how long a viewer is able to keep an object in view. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-22 This page intentionally left blank Key View 11: View facing northeast toward the existing Railroad Canyon Road Interchange from west of I-15. F I G U R E 2 .8 .7 Key View 11 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-7_Key_View_11.cdr (10/09/2015) SOURCE: Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-24 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-25 VIEWER SENSITIVITY Viewer Sensitivity has three attributes defined as follows: Activity relates to the preoccupation of viewers—are they preoccupied, thinking of something else, or are they truly engaged in observing their surroundings. Awareness relates to the focus of view—the focus is wide and the view general or the focus is narrow and the view specific. Local values and attitudes also affect viewer sensitivity. High viewer exposure helps predict viewers that may have a response to a visual change, while high viewer sensitivity helps predict viewers that may have a high concern for any visual change. OVERALL VIEWER RESPONSE The following are narrative descriptions of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity for each viewer group. The viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity for each viewer group were then merged to establish the overall viewer response of each group. Highway Neighbors (Views to the Road) Residents: Viewers in this group have few direct views of the project from close proximity. The quantity of residents who would have views of the project is approximately twenty to thirty homes or businesses at the outer edge of the neighborhoods. Local Highway Neighbors values and attitudes reflect a desire to improve the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and ameliorate the traffic congestion, circulation and safety, as they will be exposed to those changes 24 hours per day. Therefore, the exposure and sensitivity rating is considered to be moderately high. Commercial: Area residents, business owners, and employees would have a moderate level of sensitivity to changes in the visual environment due to their familiarity with the existing conditions, their frequency of exposure, and their sense of ownership. Their awareness of the project would be low as they would likely be more focused on their ultimate destination and immediate surroundings. Therefore, the exposure and sensitivity rating for commercial users is considered to be moderately low. Group Viewer Response: Cumulative exposure rating is considered to be moderately low and a cumulative sensitivity rating is considered to be moderately high. The combination is equivalent to an overall group viewer response of moderate. Highway Users (Views from the Road) Local Motorist: The overall quantity of the viewers would be approximately 200,000 to 250,000 viewers per day and the duration of exposure would be limited. Local motorists, due to their activity, would be focused on the roadway and traffic conditions in which they are traveling, but would have a high awareness of the project in their immediate foreground as they travel through the project due to familiarity. Most local motorists are sensitive to the recurrent congestion and overall reduction in traffic circulation and safety. As a result, local motorists would have an exposure rating considered to be moderate and sensitivity rating considered to be moderately high. Region Travelers/Tourists: Currently this group infrequently travels through the area at 65 miles per hour, however, it is anticipated that the quantity of travelers/tourists will increase. Local values and attitudes would be low since this viewer group does not live or work in the Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-26 community. Overall, this viewer group would likely be more focused on the view, and natural landscape features than on the project. Therefore, the exposure rating is considered to be low and sensitivity rating is considered to be moderately low. Commercial Drivers: Commercial drivers would view the project from the roadway on a regular basis. Although the quantity of viewers is high, the duration of exposure would be limited. Viewers in this group would have a low sensitivity to the project as they would not likely be focused on the project improvements but the wider view. The sensitivity rating is considered to be low and exposure rating is considered to be moderately low. Group Viewer Response: Local motorists that live in the region and travel through the project area regularly are the largest group amongst the highway users. The combination of moderate viewer exposure and moderately high viewer sensitivity is equivalent to an overall group viewer response of moderately high. Viewers, or more specifically the response viewers have to changes in their visual environment, are one of two variables that determine the extent of visual impacts that would be caused by the construction and operation of the project. The other variable is the change to visual resources discussed in Section 2.8.2.6, Visual Resources and Resource Change. 2.8.2.6 Visual Resources and Resource Change Resource change is assessed by evaluating the visual character and the visual quality of the visual resources that comprise the project corridor before and after the construction of the project. Visual resources of the project setting are defined and identified below by assessing visual character and visual quality in the project corridor. Visual resource evaluations were done for each of the eleven key views. VISUAL CHARACTER Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative, which means it is based on defined attributes that are neither good nor bad. However, a change in visual character can be evaluated when it is compared with the viewer response to that change. Changes in visual character can be identified by how visually compatible a project would be with the existing condition by using visual character attributes as an indicator. For this project the following attributes were considered: Form - Visual mass or shape Line - Edges or linear definition Color - Reflective brightness (light, dark) and hue (red, green) Texture - Surface coarseness Dominance - Position, size, or contrast Scale - Apparent size as it relates to the surroundings Diversity - Variety of visual patterns Continuity - Uninterrupted flow of form, line, color, or textural pattern EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER The existing I-15 roadway, through Lake Elsinore, follows the topography of the land through a mix of businesses and residential properties along the roadway. The roadway then continues beyond Lake Elsinore, maneuvering through the natural landscape features such as boulder Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-27 outcroppings, oak trees, sycamores, Peruvian pepper trees and topography. The line for the roadway is accentuated by the utility poles, fencing, billboards and graded slopes. The isolated trees give this view some aesthetic value; however, the lack of abundance and the nature of the surrounding vegetation do not provide memorability. There are minimal contrasting landscape components (hills to the east and sparse vegetation) and the encroachment features (utility poles), while minimal, create a chaotic pattern. The overall presence of the manmade encroachments (utility lines and poles) and the large expanse of pavement (I-15 freeway) in the midground degrades the visual character of this view and creates a nonharmonious pattern that does not blend into the setting. The visual character of the existing viewshed is considered to be moderate. VISUAL QUALITY Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness, and unity present in the project corridor. Public attitudes validate the assessed level of quality and predict how changes to the project corridor can affect these attitudes. This process helps identify specific methods for addressing each visual impact that may occur as a result of the project. The three criteria for evaluating visual quality are defined as follows: Vividness is the extent to which the landscape is memorable and is associated with distinctive, contrasting, and diverse visual elements. Intactness is the integrity of visual features in the landscape and the extent to which the existing landscape is free from non-typical visual intrusions. Unity is the extent to which all visual elements combine to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. EXISTING VISUAL QUALITY The I-15 corridor expresses a moderate degree of vividness as it is a somewhat memorable scene with immediate views of the rolling hills with outcroppings of boulders, oak trees, sycamores, Peruvian pepper trees and distant views of the naturalized grass-covered valley floor, mountains and peaks that define the skyline. Immediate built features such as miscellaneous buildings, paving, retaining walls and structures only slightly detract from the overall view. The I-15 corridor displays a moderate level of intactness as there is moderate intrusion of built elements upon the landscape features in the view. The primary distractions in the view are the overhead utility poles and wires, billboards and graded slopes. Other minor distractions to the view are the roadway surface and distant residences. The visual elements in the view create a moderate level of harmonious visual unity. Combining vividness, unity and intactness, the resulting overall visual quality of the existing view can be defined as moderate. 2.8.3 Environmental Consequences 2.8.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative does not include any changes to the physical environment; therefore, no temporary impacts to visual resources would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Visual impacts would result from construction activities, including the presence of equipment, materials, and workers at the freeway interchange and staging areas, and along the streets and roads leading to the interchange. Visual impacts due to construction activities would also result from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation within the project area. Vehicles such Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-28 as automobiles, pick-up trucks, and dump trucks would be visible. Heavy equipment such as backhoes, graders, and excavators would be prevalent. Project components and workers would be visible during site clearing, grading, lane expansion, bridge construction, site clean-up, and landscape restoration. Construction equipment and activities would be seen by various viewers in proximity to the project area, including adjacent and nearby residents, motorists on I-15 and nearby streets, and pedestrians. View durations would vary from brief to extended periods, depending on the viewer groups and viewer locations. Construction activities would be visible for those elements of the project that pass through the existing residential and commercial uses. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE As described under Alternative 2, visual impacts would result from construction activities, including the presence of equipment, materials, and workers at the freeway interchange and staging areas, and along the streets and roads leading to the interchange. Visual impacts due to construction activities would also result from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation within the project area. The primary difference in temporary impacts under Alternative 3 is the demolition and construction activity that would occur at the Casino Drive ramps. Construction and demolition activities would not occur at the Casino Drive ramps under Alternative 2. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE As described under Alternative 2, visual impacts would result from construction activities, including the presence of equipment, materials, and workers at the freeway interchange and staging areas, and along the streets and roads leading to the interchange. Visual impacts due to construction activities would also result from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation within the project area. The primary difference in temporary impacts under Alternative 4 is the construction activity and temporary closures that would occur at the intersections at Railroad Canyon Road with Lakeshore Drive, Casino Drive, Summerhill Road as well as I-15 on/off ramps. Construction activities would not occur at these intersections under either Alternative 2 or 3. 2.8.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative does not include any changes to the physical environment; therefore, no permanent impacts to visual resources would occur. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing interchange configuration and would not alter existing views to and from the freeway. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Computerized visual simulations were prepared for three of the eleven Key Views to analyze and assess the potential visual effects and impacts of the project. Two of the three simulations apply to all Build Alternatives. Figures 2.8.8 and 2.8.9 depict the visual simulations for Key Views No. 3 and No. 5 for all Build Alternatives. The visual simulations for Key View No. 3 and Key View No. 5 were prepared as part of the VIA to illustrate the visual impacts of the construction of the Franklin Street interchange and local roadways. 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. Permanent visual impacts under Alternative 2 are discussed below for each Key View. F I G U R E 2 .8 .8 Visual Simulation at Key View 3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-8-8_View_Sim_1.cdr (10/09/2015) Existing View of Franklin Street Overcrossing, looking north. Proposed View of Franklin Street Overcrossing, looking north. SOURCE: SC Engineering, 2014; Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-30 This page intentionally left blank Existing View of Franklin Street Overcrossing, looking west. Proposed View of Franklin Street Overcrossing, looking west. F I G U R E 2 .8 .9 Visual Simulation at Key View 5 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2.8.9_View_Sim_2.cdr (10/09/2015) SOURCE: SC Engineering, 2014; Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-32 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-33 Key View No. 1 From Key View No. 1, the overall character and experience for the residential viewer group would not change under Alternative 2. The primary physical change that would occur within this view is the construction of the new Franklin Street overcrossing, the construction of the Franklin Street northbound on-ramps and off-ramps and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, the construction and widening of a new roadway (Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive) connecting the new overcrossing with the existing street network, the construction of water quality detention basins and removal of vegetation in the vicinity of this viewpoint. Many of the improvements planned for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps and the construction of water quality detention basins, are not visible from this vantage point. Due to the elevated vantage point of this view, implementation of Alternative 2 would not change or degrade the visual quality within this view. While there will be a physical change to the environment through the construction of a new interchange within this viewpoint, the new structure would not result in the obstruction of existing scenic features visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 2 The character and visual quality of Key View No. 2 would not be adversely affected under Alternative 2. The primary physical changes that would occur within this view would be the construction of the new Franklin Street overcrossing, the construction of the Franklin Street northbound on-ramps and off-ramps and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, the construction and widening of a new roadway (Auto Center Drive) connecting the new overcrossing with the existing street network, the construction of water quality detention basins, and removal of vegetation in the vicinity of this viewpoint. Many of the improvements planned for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. Due to the elevated vantage point of this view, implementation of Alternative 2 would not change or degrade the visual quality within this view. Vegetation within the I-15 right-of-way would be removed. While there will be a physical change to the environment through the construction of a new interchange within this viewpoint, the new structure would not result in the obstruction of existing scenic features visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response from this Key View. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 3 Previously referenced Figure 2.8.8 illustrates the visual simulation of Key View No. 3. The overall visual character of Key View No. 3 would change due to the construction of the Franklin Street overcrossing and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, realignment, widening, and extension of Auto Center Drive, and removal of vegetation. Both the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps would be elevated above existing grade to meet with the planned elevation of the new Franklin Street interchange. The Franklin Street overcrossing structure would be elevated above the planned southbound on-ramps and off-ramps. In addition, Auto Center Drive will be realigned, widened, and extended to tie into the new Franklin Street/Avenue 6 intersection. The residential visual experience would change to some degree. Many of the improvements planned for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. This viewer group would see the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps of the new Franklin Street interchange and the elevated overcrossing structure. Additional street lighting will also be visible. However, due to the low visual quality of the existing site, visual changes under Alternative 2 are not anticipated to be substantial to Key View No. 3. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project is expected to be positive at Key View No. 3. The visual quality would be improved due to roadway improvements Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-34 and installation of vegetation. Implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, provided in Section 2.8.4, would enhance the aesthetic environment of this view. Key View No. 4 The vacant properties visible in Key View No. 4 adjacent to and west of I-15 would be replaced by new southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, which would increase in grade to connect to the new Franklin Street overcrossing. The new Franklin Street overcrossing structure would be clearly visible crossing I-15. Residential viewers from this vantage point on Franklin Street/Casino Drive would see the new ramps and overcrossing and new water quality detention basins. While the visual character of this Key View would change considerably with the construction of the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps and overcrossing, the visual quality would not be affected to the same degree because the current setting lacks scenic resources. However, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in adverse visual impacts to the viewers located on Franklin Street/Casino Drive because of the addition of an urban structure (the new southbound on-ramps and off-ramps with the new overcrossing) to a semi-urban environment. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project at Key View No. 4 is expected to be negative for the residents living in the Residential Assessment Unit because of the introduction of new structures in an area that is currently vacant and increased visual penetration of freeway traffic that would now be visible along this street. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 2 would not be adverse. Key View No. 5 The overall visual quality and character of Key View No. 5 would change with implementation of Alternative 2. The physical changes that would occur within this Key View are the loss of the minor knoll in the midground, construction/extension of Canyon View Drive westerly resulting in an increased dominance of the roadway in the midground, a visible cut slope, the introduction of controlled intersection appurtenances, additional street lighting, and increased nighttime glare from vehicle headlights. I-15 is not visible from this vantage point and the planned Franklin Street interchange would not encroach on the scenic mountains in the background. The foreground view would remain the same, with Canyon View Drive in the center and residential units and vegetation on both sides; however, implementation of this alternative would result in substantial changes to the midground view as depicted in previously referenced Figure 2.8.9. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project at Key View No. 5 is expected to be negative for the residents living in the Residential Assessment Unit because of the introduction of new roadways in the area and increased nighttime glare from vehicle headlights. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 2 would not be adverse. Key View No. 6 The overall visual quality and character from this commercial area appears more urban. Physical changes that would occur within Key View No. 6 include the construction of a northbound deceleration lane and hook ramp connecting to Grape Street, the construction of an auxiliary lane from the new northbound hook entrance ramp at I-15/Grape Street to the new northbound exit ramp at I-15/Franklin Street, and the construction of an auxiliary lane from the new southbound entrance ramp at I-15/Franklin Street to the southbound exit ramp at I- 15/Railroad Canyon Road, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Under Alternative 2, many of the improvements planned for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the planned improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-35 affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 7 The overall visual quality and character in Key View No. 7 from this commercial area appears more semi-urban due to intervening topography and trees. Physical changes that would occur within this Key View include the widening of Railroad Canyon Road under I-15 from six lanes to eight lanes, the replacement of the northbound exit ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a hook ramp connecting Grape Street and a northbound deceleration lane (two lanes exiting the freeway and widening to three lanes approaching Grape Street), and the construction of an auxiliary lane from the new northbound hook entrance ramp at I-15/Grape Street to the new northbound exit ramp at I-15/Franklin Street, and the construction of new water quality basins. Many of the improvements planned for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the planned improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 8 The overall visual quality and character in Key View of No. 8 from this residential area appears urban due to presence of commercial and residential structures and ornamental landscaping. Physical changes that would occur within this Key View include the replacement of the northbound exit ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a hook ramp connecting Grape Street and a northbound deceleration lane (two lanes exiting the freeway and widening to three lanes approaching Grape Street), and the construction of an auxiliary lane from the new northbound hook entrance ramp at I-15/Grape Street to the new northbound exit ramp at I-15/Franklin Street, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Many of the improvements planned for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the planned improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 9 The overall visual quality and character in Key View No. 9 of this mixed commercial area appears more urban. Physical changes that would occur within this Key View include the widening of the existing southbound on-ramp departing Railroad Canyon Road and the construction of water quality detention basins. Many of the improvements planned for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. Tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Casino Drive are anticipated to be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the widened southbound off-ramp. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 2 would not be adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-36 Key View No. 10 The overall visual quality and character in Key View No. 10 of this transportation corridor is low. Physical changes that would occur within this Key View include the construction of the new I- 15/Franklin Street interchange and overcrossing, construction of new northbound and southbound ramps, construction of an auxiliary lane from the southbound entrance ramp at I- 15/Main Street to the new southbound exit ramp at I-15/Franklin Street, and the construction, realignment, widening and extension of Auto Center Drive and Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive to tie into the new Franklin Street interchange, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Many of the improvements planned for Railroad Canyon Road, including the construction of new ramps and widening of the roadway, are not visible from this vantage point. The introduction of a new interchange within this view would substantially alter the character of this viewshed; however, commuters traveling northbound along I-15 are at an incline and scenic vistas are not afforded from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 11 The overall visual quality and character in Key View No. 11 from this commercial area appears more semi-urban due to intervening topography and trees. Physical changes that would occur within this key view under Alternative 2 include the widening of Railroad Canyon Road under I- 15 from six lanes to eight lanes, the replacement of the northbound exit ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a hook ramp connecting Grape Street and a northbound deceleration lane (two lanes exiting the freeway and widening to three lanes approaching Grape Street), the construction of an auxiliary lane from the new northbound hook entrance ramp at I-15/Grape Street to the new northbound exit ramp at I 15/Franklin Street, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Many of the improvements planned for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the planned improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. Minimization measures are not required. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Computerized visual simulations were prepared for three of the eleven Key Views to analyze and assess the potential visual effects and impacts of the project. Again, two of the three simulations apply to all Build Alternatives. Previously referenced Figures 2.8.7 and 2.8.8 depict the visual simulations for Key Views No. 3 and No. 5 for all Build Alternatives. The visual simulations for Key View No. 3 and Key View No. 5 were prepared as part of the VIA to demonstrate the visual impacts of the construction of the Franklin Street interchange and local roadways. Permanent visual impacts under Alternative 3 are discussed below for each Key View. Key View No. 1 The character and experience of Key View No. 1 would not change. The primary physical changes within this view would be the construction of the new Franklin Street overcrossing, the construction of the Franklin Street northbound on-ramps and off-ramps and southbound on- ramps and off-ramps, the construction and widening of a new roadway (Camino Del Norte- Canyon Estates Drive) connecting the new overcrossing with the existing street network, the construction of water quality detention basins, and removal of vegetation in the vicinity of this Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-37 viewpoint. Similar to what is described for Alternative 2, many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. While there will be a physical change to the environment through the construction of a new interchange within this viewpoint, the new structure would not result in the obstruction of existing scenic features visible from this vantage point. Residents would not experience adverse visual impacts from the proposed improvements within Key View No. 1. Minimization measures are not required. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 2 The character and experience of Key View No. 2 would not change. The main physical changes that would occur within this view would be the construction of the new Franklin Street overcrossing, the construction of the Franklin Street northbound on-ramps and off-ramps and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, the construction and widening of a new roadway (Auto Center Drive) connecting the new overcrossing with the existing street network, the construction of water quality basins and removal of vegetation in the vicinity of this viewpoint. Similar to what is described for Alternative 2, many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. The visual quality of Key View No. 2 would not decrease for the residential group because of the elevation of this vantage point. While there will be a physical change to the environment due to the construction of a new interchange within this viewpoint, the new structure would not result in the obstruction of existing scenic features visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. No minimization measures are required. Key View No. 3 The visual character of Key View No. 3 would change due to the construction of the Franklin Street overcrossing and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, realignment, widening, and extension of Auto Center Drive, and removal of vegetation. Both the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps would be elevated above existing grade to meet with the proposed elevation of the new Franklin Street interchange. The Franklin Street overcrossing structure would be elevated above the proposed southbound on-ramps and off-ramps. In addition, Auto Center Drive will be realigned, widened, and extended to tie into the new Franklin Street/Avenue 6 intersection. Many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. Similar to what is described under Alternative 2, the residential viewer group would be affected by the proposed changes. Although the character of the site will change, the visual quality at Key View No. 3 would remain the same as the existing visual quality is low. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 4 The visual changes to Key View No. 4 would also change considerably due to the introduction of an urban structure in a previously semi-urban area. The visual character of this key view would change considerably with the construction of the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps and overcrossing; however, the visual quality would not be affected to the same degree because the current setting lacks scenic resources. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in adverse visual impacts to the viewers located on Franklin Street/Casino Drive. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project at Key View No. 4 is expected to be negative for the residents living in the Residential Assessment Unit because of the introduction Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-38 of new structures in an area that is currently vacant and increased visual penetration of freeway traffic that would now be visible along this street. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 3 would not be adverse. Key View No. 5 The overall visual quality and character of Key View No. 5 would change with implementation of Alternative 3. The physical changes that would occur within this Key View are the loss of the minor knoll in the midground, construction/extension of Canyon View Drive westerly resulting in an increased dominance of the roadway in the midground, a visible cut slope, the introduction of controlled intersection appurtenances, additional street lighting, and increased nighttime glare from vehicle headlights. I-15 is not visible from this vantage point and the proposed Franklin Street interchange would not encroach on the scenic mountains in the background. The foreground view would remain the same, with Canyon View Drive in the center and residential units and vegetation on both sides; however, implementation of this alternative would result in substantial changes to the midground view as depicted in previously referenced Figure 2.8.8. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project at Key View No. 5 is expected to be negative for the residents living in Residential Assessment Unit because of the introduction of new roadways in the area and increased nighttime glare from vehicle headlights. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 3 would not be adverse. Key View No. 6 Under Alternative 3, the overall visual character and quality of Key View No. 6 would be the same as under Alternative 2. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. While Alternative 3 includes new hook ramps for the southbound I-15, they are not visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 7 Under Alternative 3, the overall visual character and quality of Key View No. 7 would be the same as under Alternative 2. However, rather than widening Railroad Canyon Road under I-15 to eight lanes, Alternative 3 would result in the widening of Railroad Canyon Road under I-15 to six lanes. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off- ramps. While Alternative 3 includes new hook ramps for the southbound I-15, they are not visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 8 Under Alternative 3, the overall visual character and quality of Key View No. 8 would be the same as under Alternative 2. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. While Alternative 3 includes new hook ramps for the southbound I-15, they are not visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-39 project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 9 Physical changes that would occur within Key View No. 9 include the elimination of the southbound entrance ramp at Railroad Canyon Road, the construction of replacement hook ramps connecting to Casino Drive and a southbound hook entrance ramp with three lanes departing Casino Drive, tapering to one acceleration lane before entering the freeway, and the construction of a southbound auxiliary lane from the new southbound entrance ramp at I-15/Franklin Street to the southbound exit ramp at I-15/Casino Drive, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Many of the improvements proposed for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. Implementation of Alternative 3 would require the partial acquisition of existing businesses along Casino Drive to allow the construction of the new hook ramps. While the removal of buildings within this vantage point would open up views northeast toward the hills, it would also result in the removal of ornamental trees and vegetation, which may potentially degrade this view. Tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Casino Drive are anticipated to be negatively affected by the introduction of southbound hook ramps. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 3 would not be adverse. Key View No. 10 The overall visual character and quality of Key View No. 10 would be the same as under Alternative 2. The introduction of a new interchange within this view would substantially alter the character of this viewshed; however, commuters traveling northbound along I-15 are at an incline and scenic vistas are not afforded from this vantage point. While Alternative 3 includes new hook ramps for the southbound I-15, they are not visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 11 Under Alternative 3, the overall visual character and quality of Key View No. 11 would be the same as under Alternative 2. However, rather than widening Railroad Canyon Road under I-15 to eight lanes, Alternative 3 would result in the widening of Railroad Canyon Road under I-15 to six lanes. As previously identified, commercial viewer sensitivity from this view is moderate. While Alternative 3 includes new hook ramps for the southbound I-15, they are not visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Computerized visual simulations were prepared for three of the eleven Key Views to analyze and assess the potential visual effects and impacts of the project. All three simulations apply to Build Alternative 4. Previously referenced Figures 2.8.7 and 2.8.8 depict the visual simulations for Key Views No. 3 and No. 5 for all Build Alternatives. The visual simulations for Key View No. 3 and Key View No. 5 were prepared as part of the VIA to demonstrate the visual impacts of the construction of the Franklin Street interchange and local roadways. Figure 2.8.9 depicts the visual simulation for Key View No. 11, under Alternative 4. The visual simulation for Key View No. 11 was prepared as part of the VIA to demonstrate the visual impacts of the construction of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange roundabouts. Permanent visual impacts under Alternative 4 are discussed below for each Key View. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-40 Key View No. 1 The main physical changes within Key View No. 1 under Alternative 4 would be the construction of the new Franklin Street overcrossing, the construction of the Franklin Street northbound on- ramps and off-ramps and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, the construction and widening of a new roadway (Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive) connecting the new overcrossing with the existing street network, and removal of vegetation in the vicinity of this viewpoint. Similar to what is described for Alternative 2, many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps and the construction of water quality detention basins, are not visible from this vantage point. While there will be a physical change to the environment through the construction of a new interchange within this viewpoint, the new structure would not result in the obstruction of existing scenic features visible from this vantage point. Residents would not experience adverse visual impacts from the proposed Alternative 4 improvements within Key View No. 1. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 2 The overall character and experience of Key View No. 2 would not change under Alternative 4. The main physical changes that would occur within this view would be the construction of the new Franklin Street overcrossing, the construction of the Franklin Street northbound on-ramps and off-ramps and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, the construction and widening of a new roadway (Auto Center Drive) connecting the new overcrossing with the existing street network, the construction of water quality detention basins, and removal of vegetation in the vicinity of this viewpoint. Similar to what is described for Alternative 2, many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. The visual quality of Key View No. 2 would not decrease for the residential group under proposed Alternative 4 because of the elevation of this vantage point. While there will be a physical change to the environment due to the construction of a new interchange within this viewpoint, the new structure would not result in the obstruction of existing scenic features visible from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. No minimization measures are required. Key View No. 3 Under Alternative 4 the overall visual character of Key View No. 3 would change due to the construction of the Franklin Street overcrossing and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, realignment, widening, and extension of Auto Center Drive, and removal of vegetation. Both the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps would be elevated above existing grade to meet with the proposed elevation of the new Franklin Street interchange. The Franklin Street overcrossing structure would be elevated above the proposed southbound on-ramps and off-ramps. In addition, Auto Center Drive will be realigned, widened, and extended to tie into the new Franklin Street/Avenue 6 intersection. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the widening and realignment of on-ramps and off-ramps, are not visible from this vantage point. This viewer group would see the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps of the new Franklin Street interchange and the elevated overcrossing structure. Additional street lighting would also be visible. The residential viewer group would be affected by the proposed changes. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-41 Key View No. 4 Implementation of Alternative 4 would change Key View No. 4 considerably. The vacant properties visible adjacent to and west of I-15 would be replaced by new southbound on-ramps and off-ramps, which would increase in grade to connect to the new Franklin Street overcrossing. The new Franklin Street overcrossing structure would be clearly visible crossing I- 15. Residential viewers from this vantage point on Franklin Street/Casino Drive would see the new ramps and overcrossing and new water quality detention basins. The visual character of this key view would change considerably with the construction of the southbound on-ramps and off-ramps and overcrossing; however, the visual quality would not be affected to the same degree because the current setting is lacking scenic resources. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project at Key View No. 4 is expected to be negative for the residents living in the Residential Assessment Unit because of the introduction of new structures in an area that is currently vacant and increased visual penetration of freeway traffic that would now be visible along this street. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS- 5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Key View No. 5 The overall visual quality and character of Key View No. 5 would change with implementation of Alternative 4. The physical changes that would occur within this Key View are the loss of the minor knoll in the midground, construction/extension of Canyon View Drive westerly resulting in an increased dominance of the roadway in the midground, a visible cut slope, the introduction of controlled intersection appurtenances, additional street lighting, and increased nighttime glare from vehicle headlights. I-15 is not visible from this vantage point and the proposed Franklin Street interchange would not encroach on the scenic mountains in the background. The foreground view would remain the same, with Canyon View Drive in the center and residential units and vegetation on both sides; however, implementation of this alternative would result in substantial changes to the midground view as depicted in previously referenced Figure 2.8.9. Viewer response to the visual changes created by the project at Key View No. 5 is expected to be negative for the residents living in the residential assessment unit because of the introduction of new roadways in the area and increased nighttime glare from vehicle headlights. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Key View No. 6 Physical changes that would occur and are visible within Key View No. 6 include the construction of a multilane roundabouts at the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road, Grape Street and Summerhill Drive, the construction of a multilane roundabout at the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and the I-15 Northbound exit/entrance ramps, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Franklin Street, including the construction of onramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-6, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-42 Key View No. 7 Physical changes that would occur within Key View No. 7 under Alternative 4 include the replacement of the northbound exit ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a multilane roundabout connecting Grape Street and Summerhill Drive, the construction of a multilane roundabout at the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and the I-15 northbound on-ramps and off-ramps, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off- ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-6, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Key View No. 8 The overall visual quality and character in Key View No. 8 from this residential area appears urban due to presence of commercial and residential structures and ornamental landscaping to the right. Physical changes that would occur within this key view under Alternative 4 include the replacement of the northbound on-ramps and off-ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a multilane roundabout connecting Grape Street and Summerhill Drive and a northbound deceleration lane, the construction of an auxiliary lane from the new northbound entrance ramp at I-15/Railroad Canyon Road to the new northbound on-ramps and off-ramps at I-15/Franklin Street, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off- ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the residential properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound onramps and off-ramps. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-6, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Key View No. 9 The overall visual quality and character in Key View No. 9 of this mixed commercial area appears more urban. Physical changes that would occur within this key view include the widening of the existing southbound on-ramp departing Railroad Canyon Road and the construction of water quality detention basins. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. Tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Casino Drive are anticipated to be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the widened southbound off-ramp. With implementation of Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, the permanent visual impacts of Alternative 4 would not be adverse. Key View No. 10 The overall visual quality and character of this transportation corridor in Key View No. 10 is low. Physical changes that would occur within this key view include the construction of the new I-15/ Franklin Street interchange and overcrossing, construction of new northbound and southbound ramps, construction of an auxiliary lane from the southbound entrance ramp at I-15/Main Street to the new southbound exit ramp at I-15/Franklin Street, the construction, realignment, widening and extension of Auto Center Drive and Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive to tie into the Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-43 new Franklin Street interchange, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Railroad Canyon Road, including the construction of new roundabouts and widening of the roadway, are not visible from this vantage point. The introduction of a new interchange within this view would substantially alter the character of this viewshed; however, commuters traveling northbound along I-15 travel are at an incline and scenic vistas are not afforded from this vantage point. Visual change created by the project is not expected to have a negative impact to viewer response. Minimization measures are not required. Key View No. 11 Physical changes that would occur within Key View No. 11 under Alternative 4 include the replacement of the northbound exit ramps at Railroad Canyon Road with a multilane roundabout connecting Grape Street and Summerhill Drive, the construction of a multilane roundabout at the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and the I-15 northbound on-ramps and off-ramps, and the construction of water quality detention basins. Figure 2.8.10 depicts the visual simulation for Key View No. 11 to demonstrate the visual impacts of the construction of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange roundabout. Under Alternative 4, many of the improvements proposed for Franklin Street, including the construction of on-ramps and off-ramps and the overcrossing, are not visible from this vantage point. This vantage point is at a higher elevation than the proposed improvements; therefore, tenants and people associated with the commercial properties on Grape Street would not be negatively affected by the closer proximity of the realigned northbound on-ramps and off-ramps. Minimization measures are not required. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: I. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The City’s General Plan identifies the following features as scenic resources within the City: Lake Elsinore, Cleveland National Forest, Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains, rugged hills, ridgelines, rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native vegetation, buildings of historical and cultural significance, parks, and trails. Visual resources afforded from areas surrounding the project site consist of the Sedco Hills to the south; portions of Lake Elsinore, the Santa Ana Mountains, Elsinore Mountains, and the Cleveland National Forest to the west; and hillsides to the north and east. As concluded in the Visual Impact Assessment1 (VIA) (July 2015) prepared for the project, implementation of the project would not result in impacts to scenic vistas available to surrounding residents, commercial tenants, and commuters. Surrounding residential and commercial property in the vicinity of the project site sits at an elevation higher than the elevation of the proposed improvements; therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the obstruction of scenic vistas currently afforded to these properties. While the new Franklin Street Interchange is an elevated structure that would be constructed in an area currently devoid of any elevated structures, commuters traveling along I-15 are traveling along a slope and scenic vistas are not afforded in either direction in the vicinity of the new interchange. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would occur, and no mitigation is required. I. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? 1 Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 2015. Visual Impact Assessment Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. July. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-44 Less Than Significant Impact. No historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or scenic resources are identified on the project site as the project site currently is developed with roadways and freeway structures. Existing roadways include Railroad Canyon Road, Casino Drive, Auto Center Drive, Franklin Street and I-15. However, none of the surrounding City roads or I-15 are identified as officially designated scenic highways.1 While the project segment of I-15 is identified as an eligible State Scenic Highway, the project segment of I-15 is not currently officially designated as a scenic highway. Since there are no State-designated scenic highways located within the City of Lake Elsinore; the project would not damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. However, as identified in the City’s General Plan, it is the City’s policy to “maintain and improve the quality of existing landscaping in parkways, parks, civic facilities, rights-of-way, and other public areas.” Construction of the project may result in the removal of adjacent trees and other mature vegetation within the I-15 right-of-way. Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-3 and VIS-6, presented below in Section 2.8.4, have been identified to minimize impacts related to the removal of trees and mature vegetation during construction of the project. Adherence to Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-3 and VIS-6 would ensure that impacts associated with this issue remain less than significant. I. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is generally linear, spanning approximately 2.7 miles. The visual character of the project site is primarily vacant land and modern single-family neighborhoods in the northern portion of the project limits. In the vicinity of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, the visual character of the site is primarily unified modern commercial and modern high-density residential buildings. The southern portion of the project site transitions into a rural residential character. Construction of the project would introduce a new elevated structure and interchange in the northern portion of the project site. Reconfigured interchanges would be constructed at Railroad Canyon Road. Construction of the project would alter the current aesthetic condition of the project site. While degradation of the site would not likely occur with implementation of the project, a change in the existing visual character and quality of the site would occur. While impacts are not considered significant, Minimization Measure VIS-4, presented below in Section 2.8.4, has been identified to minimize impacts related to the change in visual quality and character during construction and operation of the project. Adherence to Minimization Measure VIS-4 would ensure impacts associated with this issue remain less than significant. I. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Mount Palomar Observatory, located in San Diego County, is located approximately 32.7 miles southeast of the project site. Generally, to ensure that nighttime skies will not be brightened, observatories need to be sited 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas. Riverside County Ordinance 655 has established two zones, which both create radii around the Palomar Observatory. Zone A is the circular ring area centered on Palomar Observatory with a 15-mile radius; Zone B is a circular ring area, with a 45-mile radius, centered on Palomar Observatory that extends from the outer limit of Zone A to the end of the 45-mile radius area. 1 Caltrans. 2017. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov /hq/LandArch /16_ livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed September 30, 2015). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-45 The project site is located within Zone B of the Mount Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy Area. The ordinance restricts the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting undesirable light rays into the night sky, which may have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research at the Mt. Palomar Observatory. As stated in Section 5(A) of Ordinance 655, “… low- pressure sodium lamps are the preferred illuminating source” in the Mount Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy Area. Other types of lighting systems are permitted in parking areas as long as they do not exceed 4,050 lumens. Lighting “allowed” under Ordinance 655 must be fully shielded (if feasible) and partially shielded in all other cases, and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night sky and onto adjacent properties. Due to the City’s proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory, the City encourages the use of low pressure sodium lighting for development. The City incorporates standards detailed in Ordinance 655 in Section 17.112.040 of the City’s Municipal Code, which states that all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts must be oriented and shielded to prevent direct overhead illumination and prevent any glare or direct illumination on adjacent properties or streets.1 The existing project site and vicinity receive light at night from traffic, street lighting, and lighted parking lots; signalization at the intersections and freeway on-ramps and off-ramps; and from the commercial zone and limited light sources from residential development. Existing lighting on the streets and along the ramps would be modified or relocated as a part of the project, where required. The site is located within an urbanizing area of the City that already experiences some levels of light and/or glare from the existing buildings, vehicles, and streetlights. Light and glare from lighting fixtures and vehicles entering/exiting the project site after project implementation would generally be similar to the existing condition in the project area. However, the relocation of lighting fixtures and the installation of lighting fixtures on the new overcrossing would introduce new light sources in areas without existing lighting fixtures, potentially affecting residents of the single-family neighborhood in the vicinity of the new overcrossing. While impacts are not considered significant, Minimization Measure VIS-5, presented below in Section 2.8.4, and Minimization Measure AN-8, presented in Section 2.20.4, have been identified to minimize impacts related to the relocation or installation of new lighting fixtures and the effect on nearby sensitive uses. Adherence to the applicable lighting standards established by City ordinance, adherence to City development standards, and the preparation of a lighting plan required by Minimization Measure VIS-5 would ensure no significant lighting impacts would occur as a result of development of the project. 2.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This section describes additional avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address specific visual impacts. These would be designed and implemented with concurrence of the District Landscape Architect. The following measures to avoid or minimize visual impacts would be incorporated into the project: VIS-1 Prior to construction, the City of Lake Elsinore shall locate construction and staging areas within the City, the County of Riverside, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and/or freeway rights-of-way. The City shall also 1 City of Lake Elsinore. Municipal Code Section 17.112.040 Lighting. Website: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/lakeelsinore/ (accessed October 5, 2009). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-46 require construction access and staging areas to be located within the maximum project disturbance footprint. VIS-2 Prior to construction, the City shall adopt a landscape plan that is compatible with the Interstate 15 (I-15) Corridor Improvement Plan and is incorporated into the final design of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project. This plan shall identify all opportunities to use areas within the project limits for revegetation and it shall include landscaping for graded areas with plant species consistent with adjacent vegetation and enhancement of new project structures to the extent feasible. This plan shall incorporate all applicable procedures and requirements as detailed in Caltrans ’s Highway Design Manual, Section 902.1, Planting Guidelines (November 2001), and the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. The landscape plan shall include the following components, as feasible: Maintain the visual planting character of the I-15 corridor; Plant drought-resistant plants along the I-15 corridor to promote use of xeric (adapted to arid conditions) landscaping techniques; Incorporate soil erosion control plants into the embankments and within the areas of steeper slopes; and Create water quality basins that blend into the surrounding landscape. VIS-3 The City shall be required to save existing mature trees, where practical. The City shall also implement its Palm Tree Preservation Program for palm trees that exceed 5 feet in height measured from the ground at the base of the trunk to the base of the crown. If removal of mature trees cannot be avoided, the City shall require that a tree replacement ratio of 1:1 be implemented and additional landscape improvements be incorporated into the final design. VIS-4 The City shall incorporate attractive walls, medians, and other visually pleasing hardscape into the final design of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange project. This may include, but is not limited to, potential aesthetic enhancements for retaining walls and other structures, in the final design of the Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project and the new Franklin Street overcrossing. The location and design of retaining walls along Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street off-ramps and on-ramps will require compliance with Caltrans standards for safety. VIS-5 A lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City and Caltrans prior to construction. The lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize glare on adjacent properties and into the night sky. Lighting shall be shielded with non-glare hoods and focused within the project right-of-way. Key View 11: View facing northeast toward the existing Railroad Canyon Road Interchange from west of I-15. Key View 11: View facing northeast toward the proposed Railroad Canyon Road Interchange from west of I-15. F I G U R E 2 .8 .1 0 Visual Simulation at Key View 11 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0 EA. 0A4400 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Initial Study/Environmental Assessment I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-8-10_Key_View_11ExistProposed.cdr (10/09/2015) SOURCE: SC Engineering, 2014; Estrada Land Planning, Inc., 2015 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.8-48 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-1 2.9 Cultural Resources 2.9.1 Regulatory Setting The term “cultural resources,” as used in this document, refers to the “built environment” (e.g., structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.), places of traditional or cultural importance, and archaeological sites (both prehistoric and historic), regardless of significance. Under federal and state laws, cultural resources that meet certain criteria of significance are referred to by various terms including “historic properties,” “historic sites,” “historical resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, sets forth national policy and procedures for historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the 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 (ACHP) the opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the ACHP (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). On January 1, 2014, the First Amended Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the ACHP, the California 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 ACHP’s regulations, 36 CFR 800, streamlining the Section 106 process and delegating certain responsibilities to the Department. The FHWA’s responsibilities under the PA have been assigned to the Department as part of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (23 United States Code [USC] 327). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) applies when a project may involve archaeological resources located on federal or tribal land. The ARPA requires that a permit be obtained before excavation of an archaeological resource on such land can take place. 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 (in Section 4(f) terminology—historic sites). See Appendix B for specific information about Section 4(f). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the consideration of cultural resources that are historical resources and tribal cultural resources, as well as “unique” archaeological resources. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and outlined the necessary criteria for a cultural resource to be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR and, therefore, a historical resource. Historical resources are defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j). In 2014, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) added the term “tribal cultural resources” to CEQA, and AB 52 is commonly referenced instead of CEQA when discussing the process to identify tribal cultural resources (as well as identifying measures to avoid, preserve, or mitigate effects to them). Defined in PRC Section 21074(a), a tribal cultural resource is a CRHR or local register eligible site, feature, place, cultural landscape, or object which has a cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Tribal cultural resources must also meet the definition of a historical resource. Unique archaeological resources are referenced in PRC Section 21083.2. PRC Section 5024 requires state agencies to identify and protect state-owned historical resources that meet the NRHP listing criteria. It further requires the Department to inventory state-owned structures in its rights-of-way. Sections 5024(f) and 5024.5 require state agencies to provide notice to and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before altering, transferring, relocating, or demolishing state-owned historical resources that are listed Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-2 on or are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or are registered or eligible for registration as California Historical Landmarks. Procedures for compliance with PRC Section 5024 are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)1 between the Department and SHPO, effective January 1, 2015. For most Federal-aid projects on the State Highway System, compliance with the Section 106 PA will satisfy the requirements of PRC Section 5024. 2.9.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (August 2011) Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (August 2011) Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (Supplemental HPSR) (January 2015) An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was developed for the project as part of the HPSR (August 2011). For the Supplemental HPSR (January 2015), a revised APE was established on January 14, 2015. The APE includes all areas in which the project has the potential to directly or indirectly affect historic properties, if any such properties exist. These include the horizontal and vertical areas proposed for (1) direct effects associated with ground-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, existing and proposed right-of-way, temporary and permanent construction easements, proposed sound and retaining walls, and staging areas; and (2) indirect effects that are the result of visual, noise, or other effects. The area of indirect effects generally includes all developed properties that are adjacent to the proposed direct effects unless those effects are limited to minor improvements (such as pavement striping) that have no potential to indirectly affect adjacent properties. The APE extends around the entirety of those parcels where the built environment may be directly or indirectly affected. 2.9.2.1 Records Search For the HPSR (August 2011), a records search and literature review were conducted on August 5, 2009, at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at the University of California, Riverside. The following historical resources files, inventories, and listings were consulted: 2001 Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility 2002 National Register of Historic Places Properties 1992 California Register of Historical Resources 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources 1995 California Historical Landmarks 1992 California Points of Historical Interest In addition, background research on historical/archaeological resources was conducted for the APE using published literature on local and regional history, online sources, historical aerial photographs and maps of the project vicinity, and newspaper articles. 1 The MOU is located on the SER at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/5024mou_15.pdf. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-3 No additional records searches were conducted as part of the Supplemental HPSR (January 2015) because the proposed improvements associated with Alternative 4 would be within the previously identified APE. 2.9.2.2 Field Survey An intensive pedestrian field survey of the APE was conducted from March 31 to April 2, 2010. No additional field surveys were conducted as a result of Alternative 4 because the proposed improvements associated with Alternative 4 would be within the previously identified APE. The APE survey was conducted by walking transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart, with particular attention given to the mapped locations of previously documented archaeological resources. Approximately 20 percent of the surface was visible, with substantial obstruction by vegetation, development, and roadway. The majority of the project APE was disturbed by development, roadway construction, earthmoving, and weed-abatement disking activities. One archaeological resource (CA-RIV-2765) was identified within the APE by the archival research. During the survey, it was determined that site CA-RIV-2765 has been removed by commercial development. One historic-period can scatter and one 1940s residence were identified within the APE during the survey. No other cultural resources were identified during the survey. 2.9.2.3 Native American Consultation Four individuals representing three Native American groups were contacted via certified mail and email on September 21, 2009 (Willie Pink, Luiseño; Joseph Ontiveros, Soboba Band of Luiseño) and May 4, 2010 (Anna Hoover and Paul Macarro, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians; consultation was also reinitiated with Mr. Ontiveros). Letters were followed up by telephone calls during October and December 2009. Mr. Ontiveros (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians) indicated the project area is regarded as highly sensitive by the Soboba and requested Native American monitoring of the project, continuity of consultation, initiation of consultation with the project developer and landowner, and transmittal of information in the event of late discovery of cultural materials new developments. Caltrans responded to a Pechanga request for information pertaining to cultural resources within and adjacent to the project APE on November 4, 2010. No additional Native American consultation was conducted as part of the Supplemental HPSR (January 2015). Consultation letters were mailed on February 9, 2017, to the tribes who had originally consulted with Caltrans under Section 106 for this project. Two tribes responded and requested meetings to discuss the project. On February 16, 2017, Caltrans met with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the project. On March 1, 2017, Caltrans met with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the project, and additional discussion with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians occurred on March 9, 2017. Because of the general sensitivity of the area surrounding the project footprint, both tribes have requested monitoring of any ground disturbance of native soils during construction. As project designs are finalized, additional review by the tribes may eliminate areas that require monitoring. 2.9.2.4 Resources within the APE The records search and literature review conducted for the HPSR (August 2011) indicated that 53 cultural resources studies have been previously conducted within a 1-mile radius of the APE. Six studies included portions of the APE, but none of these documented cultural resources. One prehistoric resource (a milling complex, CA-RIV-2765) was documented within the APE. Twenty-seven additional archaeological resources are located within a 1-mile radius of the project. The prehistoric archaeological resources include a habitation site (CA-RIV-3504), two Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-4 artifact scatters with milling features (CA-RIV-2506 and CA-RIV-4037), eight lithic scatters (CA-RIV-2275, -2764, -3505, -3506, -4037, -4042, -4647, and -4648), and 13 isolated artifacts (see HPSR, Attachment D, records search results letter for resource numbers). The historic archaeological resources include a railroad bridge and associated features (CA-RIV-3832H), a refuse scatter (CA-RIV-7927), and an isolated artifact (33-15945). Thirty-six historic built resources are also documented within 1 mile of the project (residential and commercial buildings). There are seven bridges within the project APE. These include Railroad Canyon Road Undercrossings (Bridge Nos. 56 0714L and 56 0714R), Franklin Street Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56 0715), San Jacinto River (Bridge Nos. 56 0728L and 56 0728R), and Main Street Undercrossings (Bridge Nos. 56 0382L and 56 0382R). According to Caltrans bridge inventories, all seven of the bridges are Category 5 (not eligible for the National Register); therefore, none of the bridges were evaluated as part of this study. If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving 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 cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County of Riverside Coroner contacted. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who will then notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact the District 8 Environmental Branch Chief 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. 2.9.3 Environmental Consequences 2.9.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative does not involve any construction activities or improvements; therefore, no temporary impacts to cultural resources would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway structures and additional roadway features. These construction activities could result in impacts to unknown buried cultural materials or human remains. Any impacts to buried resources would be considered permanent; therefore, an analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway structures and additional roadway features. These construction activities could result in impacts to unknown buried cultural materials or human remains. Any impacts to buried resources would be considered permanent; therefore, an analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway structures and additional roadway features. These construction activities could result in impacts to Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-5 unknown buried cultural materials or human remains. Any impacts to buried resources would be considered permanent; therefore, an analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. 2.9.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative does not include any changes to the physical environment; therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Based on the results of the HPSR (2011), the ASR (2011), and the Supplemental HPSR (2015), it was determined that the only cultural resources within the project APE do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, do not qualify as a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA, or are exempt per the Section 106 PA. One historic-period can scatter and one 1940s residence were identified within the APE during the survey; however, both of these resources meet the criteria for exemption from evaluation under Attachment 4 of Caltrans’ Programmatic Agreement. None of these resources appears to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register or to qualify as a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA as identified in the HPSR. Therefore, Caltrans has determined a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected.” Because no historic properties were identified in the APE, there are no Section 4(f) historic sites or properties. Although considered unlikely, there is the potential to encounter unknown buried cultural materials, tribal cultural resources, or human remains within the APE during construction of this alternative. In the event that previously unknown buried cultural materials or human remains are encountered during construction, compliance with standard Measures CR-1 through CR-4, provided below, would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to previously unknown cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Based on the results of the HPSR (2011) the ASR (2011), and the Supplemental HPSR (2015), it was determined that the only cultural resources within the project APE do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, do not qualify as a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA, or are exempt per the Section 106 PA. Impacts to cultural resources identified for Alternative 3 would the same as those identified for Alternative 2. In the event that previously unknown buried cultural materials, tribal cultural resources, or human remains are encountered during construction, compliance with standard Measures CR-1 through CR-4, provided below, would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to previously unknown cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains under this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Based on the results of the HPSR (2011) the ASR (2011), and the Supplemental HPSR (2015), it was determined that the only cultural resources within the project APE do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, do not qualify as a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA, or are exempt per the Section 106 PA. Impacts to cultural resources identified for Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. In the event that previously unknown buried cultural materials, tribal cultural resources, or human remains are encountered during construction, compliance with standard Measures CR-1 through CR-4, provided below, Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-6 would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to previously unknown cultural resources or human remains under this alternative. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: V. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. Based on the results of the Historic Property Survey Report (2011),1 the Archaeological Survey Report (2011),2 and Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (2015),3 it was determined that the only cultural resources within the project limits do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and do not qualify as “historical resources.” One historic-period can scatter and one 1940s residence were identified within the APE during the survey; however, both of these resources meet the criteria for exemption from evaluation under Attachment 4 of the Caltrans Programmatic Agreement. None of these resources appears to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register or to qualify as a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA as identified in the HPSR. Since no historic resources are located within the project, no significant impact to any historic resources would result from implementation of the project. No mitigation is required. V. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would involve soil disturbance within the project limits. Therefore, there is the potential for archaeological resources to be uncovered during the course of ground-disturbing activities. Minimization Measure CR-1, a standard condition, presented below in Section 2.9.4, has been identified in the event that cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground-disturbing activities. Adherence to Minimization Measure CR-1 would minimize impacts associated with this issue and ensure impacts remain less than significant. V. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of the project study area is currently developed with existing infrastructure features (e.g., roadways, interchanges). The project would also require the acquisition of vacant property. However, no evidence exists in the record to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Minimization Measure CUL-2, a standard condition, presented below in Section 2.9.4, has been identified in the event that human remains are discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities. Adherence to Minimization Measure CUL-2 would minimize impacts associated with this issue and ensure impacts remain less than significant. 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 2011. Historic Property Survey Report I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. August. 2 LSA Associates, Inc. 2011. Archaeological Survey Report for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. August. 3 LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. January. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-7 XVII. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the results of the Historic Property Survey Report (2011),1 the Archaeological Survey Report (2011),2, and the Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (2015),3 it was determined that the only cultural resources within the project limits do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and do not qualify as “historical resources.” One historic-period can scatter and one 1940s residence were identified within the APE during the survey; however, both of these resources meet the criteria for exemption from evaluation under Attachment 4 of the Caltrans Programmatic Agreement. None of these resources appears to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources as identified in the HPSR. Based on comments provided by the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the project site and vicinity has been identified as an area of cultural sensitivity with the potential to contain tribal cultural resources (TCRs) based on their historic cultural affiliation to the project area. Avoidance and minimization measures to address cultural resources have been identified and included in this Final IS/EA in Section 2.9.4, Resources, Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. Specific measures to address potential impact to TCRs include Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4, presented below in Section 2.9.4. Consultation under CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA for the IS/EA was completed as of March 31, 2017. Consultation will continue during the design and construction phase of the project as described in Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4.” With implementation of these minimization measures, impacts would remain less than significant. XVII. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less Than Significant Impact. Good faith government-to-government consultation took place pre-AB 52 compliance and is documented in Chapter 3 of the Final IS/EA. AB 52 is triggered with the publication of a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration after July 1, 2015. AB 52 government-to-government consultation was initiated with Tribes that have notified Caltrans in writing to consult on any projects within the area of this 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 2011. Historic Property Survey Report I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. August. 2 LSA Associates, Inc. 2011. Archaeological Survey Report for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. August. 3 LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. January. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-8 project on February 9, 2017. All consulting Tribes are in receipt of an AB 52 consultation letter from Caltrans. A meeting was held with the Soboba Band of Luiseno on February 16, 2017, and a meeting was held with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on March 1, 2017. Additional discussions with the Pechanga Band occurred on March 9, 2017. During the AB 52 consultation meetings, both Tribes made very similar statements and requests. During the Section 106 cultural study, no cultural resources had been identified within the project footprint. In the years since the original study was conducted, cultural resources were discovered in the areas surrounding the project footprint. Because of the general sensitivity of the area surrounding the project footprint, both Tribes have requested monitoring of any ground disturbance of native soils during construction. To ensure that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, Minimization Measures CR-1 through CR-4 have been identified and are presented below in Section 2.9.4. Adherence to Minimization Measures CR-1 through CR-4 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. 2.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The measures below are required to minimize the potential project impacts related to the discovery of previously unknown cultural materials and human remains during construction: Minimization Measures CR-1 If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. CR-2 If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County of Riverside Coroner shall be contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall then notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains shall also contact the District 8 Environmental Branch Chief so that the California Department of Transportation 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. CR-3 Project grading plans shall be provided to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for review prior to any ground- disturbing activities within native soils. The need for Native American monitoring of ground-disturbing activities within native soils shall be evaluated and agreed to by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Native American Coordinator, tribal representatives, a qualified archaeological monitor, and the City of Lake Elsinore’s Public Works Director, or designee. CR-4 Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, a Monitoring and Discovery Plan shall be prepared. The Monitoring and Discovery Plan will define the monitoring protocol and the procedures for addressing the discovery of cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-9 If cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered during disturbances in native soils, the qualified archaeological monitor shall be empowered to redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. At the time of the assessment, the qualified archaeological monitor may require the initiation of an archaeological testing program that would include the recordation of artifacts and controlled removal of the materials, as well as sampling of the area surrounding the find to delineate its horizontal and vertical extent. If the find is determined to be significant or is a unique archaeological and/or tribal cultural resource, a data recovery program shall be conducted to recover an adequate sample from the site to mitigate any impacts by the project. At the completion of all disturbances within native soils during project construction, the archaeological monitor shall provide a report documenting the monitoring conducted on the site, including a discussion of any cultural and/or tribal cultural resources encountered during construction, how those resources were addressed and documented, any data recovery program, and where any artifacts were curated. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.9-10 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-1 Physical Environment 2.10 Hydrology and Floodplain 2.10.1 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 impacted 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.” 2.10.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (July 2010) Location Hydraulics Study (July 2010) Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) (June 2010) Water Quality Assessment Supplemental Memorandum (January 2015) The project is within the San Jacinto Valley Watershed Basin and Temescal Creek. The San Jacinto River crosses Interstate 15 (I-15) north of the Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing and ultimately drains into Lake Elsinore. The project area is mapped on three Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). From north to south, the map numbers for the maps covering the project area are FIRM No. 06065C2043G (August 28, 2008), FIRM No. 06065C2041G (August 28, 2008), and FIRM No. 06065C2037G (August 28, 2008). A project segment of I-15 from the San Jacinto River to north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing is in Zone A of the 100-year floodplain (Wash “D”), which represents that no Base Flood Elevations have been determined. Floodplains and wetlands in their natural or relatively undisturbed state provide natural and beneficial water resource values (e.g., natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge), living resource values (e.g., fish, wildlife, and plant species), and cultural resource values (e.g., open space, archaeological and historical resources, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor education, and recreation). In the project area, stormwater runoff from I-15 (approximately 0.4 mile north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to 1.0 mile south of the existing Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing) is collected in the median Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-2 drainage system, which eventually discharges into the San Jacinto River. Stormwater runoff from I-15 (approximately 0.4 mile north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to Main Street) is collected in the median drainage system and routed to the City of Lake Elsinore’s (City) storm drain systems before discharging into Temescal Creek. Beneficial water resource values are identified in the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (Basin Plan, updated February 2016, to include approved amendments). The following intermittent beneficial uses were identified in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Basin Plan (Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan) for the San Jacinto Valley Watershed Basin: REC-1: Body-contact recreation (swimming/wading) REC-2: Nonbody-contact recreation (boating/fishing) WARM: Warm-water habitat for fish amenable for reproduction in warm water WILD: Habitat for wild plants and animals Beneficial uses identified in Reach 5 of Temescal Creek include the following: AGR: Agriculture GWR: Groundwater recharge RARE: Habitat for rare (threatened/endangered) plants and animals REC-1: Body-contact recreation (swimming/wading) REC-2: Nonbody-contact recreation (boating/fishing) WARM: Warm-water habitat for fish amenable for reproduction in warm water WILD: Habitat for wild plants and animals The San Jacinto Valley Watershed Basin and Reach 5 of Temescal Creek are not listed on the 2010 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. However, Lake Elsinore is listed on the 303(d) List for Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Sedimentation Toxicity and Unknown Toxicity with potential sources being “Unknown Non-point Source” or Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers.” Temescal Creek (Reach 6) is classified as a 303(d) Impaired Water Body listed for Indicator Bacteria. 2.10.3 Environmental Consequences 2.10.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction of any improvements within a floodplain. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in temporary adverse impacts related to natural and beneficial floodplain values. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Construction activities have the potential to affect the intermittent beneficial water resource values of Temescal Creek and the San Jacinto River. As discussed in detail in Section 2.11, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, potential impacts to water quality could occur during construction of the project due to increased erosion or accidental spills. However, Best Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-3 Management Practices (BMPs), including erosion control measures, would be implemented during construction of the project to reduce impacts to water quality and beneficial water resource values. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in short-term adverse impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Similar to what was identified for Alternative 2, construction activities associated with Alternative 3 have the potential to affect the intermittent beneficial water resource values of Temescal Creek and the San Jacinto River. Although potential impacts to water quality could occur during construction of the project due to increased erosion or accidental spills, BMPs would be implemented. These include erosion control measures and would be implemented during construction of the project to reduce impacts to water quality and beneficial water resource values. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in short-term adverse impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Similar to what was identified for Alternative 2, construction activities associated with Alternative 4 have the potential to affect the intermittent beneficial water resource values of Temescal Creek and the San Jacinto River. Although potential impacts to water quality could occur during construction of the project due to increased erosion or accidental spills, BMPs would be implemented. These include erosion control measures and would be implemented during construction of the project to reduce impacts to water quality and beneficial water resource values. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in short-term adverse impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values. 2.10.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction of any improvements that would result in changes to the hydrology of the San Jacinto River, Temescal Creek, or associated floodplains. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in permanent adverse impacts related to floodplains. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET There is no planned construction work at the San Jacinto River for this alternative; however, the planned new interchange at I-15/Franklin Street is within Wash “D” (Zone A of the 100-year floodplain). The new Franklin Street northbound exit ramps, new Franklin Street, and Canyon View Estates would encroach on Wash “D” in the 100-year floodplain. The construction would discharge embankment material into the Wash “D” streambed; however, the encroachment of the project would be above the 100-year flood elevation. To minimize impacts to the floodplain (Wash “D”), the project would include drainage improvements (lined concrete channels and reinforced concrete boxes) to convey storm flow. A “significant encroachment,” as defined in 23 CFR 650.105(q), is a highway encroachment that would result in (1) a significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community’s only evacuation, (2) a significant risk, or (3) a significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. As identified in the Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (July 2010), there would be no significant floodplain-related risks to life or property associated with implementation of the Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-4 project. In addition, the Location Hydraulic Study (July 2010), concluded that there was a low flooding risk associated with Alternative 2. The Conceptual Drainage Analysis determined that the project would not adversely affect local drainage facilities and that the City’s storm drain system could accommodate the increase in storm flows from the project. The project would require modifications to the existing local drainage structures, but would not alter the existing drainage pattern of downstream areas or lead to downstream flooding. There are no substantial floodplain-related risks to life or property associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the project would not promote incompatible floodplain development. As documented in the Natural Environment Study (NES), Wash “D,” north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing is located in “Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub” and “non-native grassland”. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 1.6 acres of the Wash “D” streambed due to placement of embankment fill for the new roadway improvements, right-of-way, and drainage improvements (lines concrete channels and reinforced concrete boxes) to convey storm flow. However, measures to minimize impacts and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values would be included as part of the project implementation. Because implementation of the project would not result in a significant change in the capacity of Wash “D” to carry water, alter the existing drainage pattern of downstream areas, or lead to downstream flooding, no measureable impacts would occur to the 100-year floodplain elevation. With implementation of the identified measure, the planned encroachment would not result in any adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values, would not result in a substantial change in flood risks or damage, and does not have substantial potential for interruption or termination of emergency services or emergency routes. Therefore, the project does not constitute a significant floodplain encroachment as defined in 23 CFR 650.105. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE For Alternative 3, there is no proposed construction work within the San Jacinto River. The proposed interchange at I-15/Franklin Street would still occur under this alternative. Therefore, all hydraulic and floodplain impacts associated with this interchange as identified in Alternative 2 would still occur under Alternative 3. The new Franklin Street northbound exit ramps, new Franklin Street, and Canyon View Estates would encroach on Wash “D” in the 100-year floodplain. Although construction would discharge embankment material into the Wash “D” streambed; as identified in the Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (July 2010), there would be no significant floodplain-related risks to life or property associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the Location Hydraulic Study (July 2010), concluded that there was a low flooding risk associated with Alternative 3 and the encroachment of the project would be above the 100-year flood elevation. To minimize impacts to the floodplain (Wash “D”), the project would include drainage improvements (lined concrete channels and reinforced concrete boxes) to construction of retaining walls and wing walls within embankment areas convey storm flow. The proposed encroachment would not result in any adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values, would not result in a substantial change in flood risks or damage, and does not have substantial potential for interruption or termination of emergency services or emergency routes. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-5 Therefore, the project does not constitute a significant floodplain encroachment as defined in 23 CFR 650.105. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE For Alternative 4, there is no proposed construction work within the San Jacinto River. The proposed interchange at I-15/Franklin Street would still occur under this alternative. Therefore, all hydraulic and floodplain impacts associated with this interchange as identified in Alternative 2 would still occur under Alternative 4. The new Franklin Street northbound exit ramps, new Franklin Street, and Canyon View Estates would encroach on Wash “D” in the 100-year floodplain. Although construction would discharge embankment material into the Wash “D” streambed; as identified in the Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (July 2010), there would be no significant floodplain-related risks to life or property associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the Location Hydraulic Study (July 2010), concluded that there was a low flooding risk associated with Alternative 3 and the encroachment of the project would be above the 100-year flood elevation. To minimize impacts to the floodplain (Wash “D”), the project would include drainage improvements (lined concrete channels and reinforced concrete boxes) to construction of retaining walls and wing walls within embankment areas convey storm flow. The proposed encroachment would not result in any adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values, would not result in a substantial change in flood risks or damage, and does not have substantial potential for interruption or termination of emergency services or emergency routes. Therefore, the project does not constitute a significant floodplain encroachment as defined in 23 CFR 650.105. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: IX. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would encroach on Wash “D” in the 100-year floodplain. The construction would discharge embankment material into the Wash “D” streambed; however, the encroachment of the project would be above the 100-year flood elevation. The project would require modifications to the existing local drainage structures, but would not alter the existing drainage pattern of downstream areas or lead to downstream flooding. In addition, the project would not promote incompatible floodplain development. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 1.6 acres (0.7 hectare) of the Wash “D” streambed due to placement of embankment fill for the new roadway improvements, right- of-way, and drainage improvements (lines concrete channels and reinforced concrete boxes) to convey storm flow. However, measures to minimize impacts and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values would be included as part of the project implementation. These standard conditions would comply with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) standards for not restricting seasonal channel flood capacity. Adherence to standard conditions would ensure impacts remain below a level of significance. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-6 IX. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to CEQA Response a) above, No stream courses or points of discharge will be altered as a result of project implementation. Adherence to standard conditions would ensure impacts remain below a level of significance. IX. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map as the project is an infrastructure project. As such, the project does not involve housing. Because no housing structures would be located within the 100-year flood hazard area, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. IX. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project does not propose the placement of any permanent structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the project would not result in the impediment or redirection of flood flows. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. IX. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project would result in the construction of improvements to existing roadways and interchanges within the project area. Although portions of the project site are in an area that could be inundated by 100-year flooding, the project would not construct habitable buildings within a designated flood area or within an identified dam inundation area. Consequently, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation required. IX. j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located near the east corner of Lake Elsinore and is not located in an area that is subject to mudflows or tsunamis. A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water (similar to the sloshing of water in a bathtub). Seiches have been observed on larger lakes, reservoirs, harbors and bays, and in smaller ocean areas that are substantially surrounded by land. In contrast to larger bodies of water, Lake Elsinore is relatively small rectangular lake (less than 2 miles wide and about 3 miles long). Because the project site is located near Lake Elsinore, there is potential that a seismic event could result in a seiche. However, because of the nature of the project (interchange and roadway improvements), it is anticipated that, in the event of a seiche, damage to the project site would not be significant as no permanent buildings are located on site. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-7 2.10.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on the analysis contained in Section 2.10, the project is not anticipated to have impacts associated with Hydrology and Floodplains. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. However, to address potential impacts from construction of the project, measures to minimize potential temporary construction impacts and long-term operational impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values related to water quality are discussed in Section 2.11, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.10-8 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-1 2.11 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 2.11.1 Regulatory Setting 2.11.1.1 Federal Requirements: 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 source 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 important CWA sections are: Sections 303 and 304 require states to promulgate water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity, which 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 U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 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 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 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-2 or toxic effluent1 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. 2.11.1.2 State Requirements: 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. 2.11.1.3 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. RWCQBs are responsible for 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 1 The U.S. EPA defines “effluent” as “wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall.” Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-3 having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water.” The SWRCB has identified Caltrans as an owner/operator of an MS4 under federal regulations. Caltrans’ MS4 permit covers all Caltrans rights-of-way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for 5 years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted. Caltrans’ 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. Caltrans must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see below); 2. Caltrans must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to effectively control storm water and non-storm water discharges; and 3. Caltrans storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs), to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), and other measures as the SWRCB determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards. To comply with the permit, Caltrans 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 Caltrans 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 Caltrans 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. 2009-0009-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 include 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 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 3 (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 Caltrans’ Standard Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-4 Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre. 2.11.1.4 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 body 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 USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before 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 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. 2.11.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) (June 2010) Water Quality Assessment Supplemental Memorandum (January 2015) 2.11.2.1 Surface Water In the City of Lake Elsinore (City) and the surrounding unincorporated County of Riverside (County) area, drainage is directed from east to west, south to north (south of Railroad Canyon Road to the San Jacinto River and from 1,200 feet (ft) north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to Main Street) and north to south (1,200 ft north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to the San Jacinto River). A series of south-north channels and underground storm drains transport drainage to the San Jacinto River or the Temescal Creek. The project area is located within the San Jacinto Valley watershed of the Lake Elsinore-San Jacinto River Basin (Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA) 802.31) and Temescal Creek (Reach 5 Mid- Section Line of Section 17 (downstream end of freeway cut) to Elsinore G, Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA) 801.35). The only major drainage facility, the San Jacinto River, crosses Interstate 15 (I-15) north of the Railroad Canyon undercrossing and ultimately drains into Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore, Hydrology Unit 802.31). The distance from Lake Elsinore to the project site is approximately 0.5 mile. The following intermittent beneficial uses were identified in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Basin Plan (Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan, updated February 2008) for the San Jacinto Valley Watershed Basin: REC-1: Body-contact recreation (swimming/wading) REC-2: Nonbody-contact recreation (boating/fishing) WARM: Warm-water habitat for fish amenable for reproduction in warm water WILD: Habitat for wild plants and animals Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-5 Beneficial uses identified in Reach 5 of Temescal Creek include the following: AGR: Agriculture GWR: Groundwater recharge RARE: Habitat for rare (threatened/endangered) plants and animals REC-1: Body-contact recreation (swimming/wading) REC-2: Nonbody-contact recreation (boating/fishing) WARM: Warm-water habitat for fish amenable for reproduction in warm water WILD: Habitat for wild plants and animals The San Jacinto Valley Watershed Basin and Reach 5 of Temescal Creek are not listed on the 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. However, Lake Elsinore is listed on the 303(d) List for Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen, Sediment Toxicity and Unknown Toxicity with the potential sources being “Unknown Non-point Source” or “Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers”. Temescal Creek (Reach 6) is classified as a 303(d) Impaired Water Body listed for Indicator Bacteria. An amendment to the Basin Plan to incorporate Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) were approved by the Regional Board on December 20, 2004, by the State Water Resources Control Board on May 19, 2005, by the Office of Administrative Law on July 26, 2005 and by the US Environmental Protection Agency on September 30, 2005. The adopted TMDLs specified a set of implementation tasks, responsible parties, and compliance dates. TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. 2.11.2.2 Groundwater As designated by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the project area is within the Elsinore Groundwater Basin. The Elsinore Groundwater Basin is bounded on the southwest by the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains along the Willard Fault. The basin adjoins the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin on the southeast at a low surface drainage divide. The basin is bounded on the northwest by the Temescal Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley Groundwater Basin at a constriction in the Temescal Wash. The basin is bounded on the northeast by the nonwater- bearing rocks of the Peninsular Ranges along the Glen Ivy Fault. The principal recharge of the basin is from infiltration of stream flow through alluvial fan deposits near the edges of the basin and through gravel deposits along the course of the San Jacinto River. Other contributing sources include infiltration from unlined channels that overlay the basin, underflow from saturated alluvium and fractures within the surrounding bedrock in the mountains and hills, and the spreading of water in recharge basins. Municipal pumping for potable water is the only major outflow from the Elsinore groundwater basin. Some additional groundwater pumping is performed as necessary to help maintain the elevation of Lake Elsinore at 1,242.4 ft above mean sea level. Based on the Water Quality Supplemental Memorandum (January 2015) , the depth to groundwater varies considerably across the basin area, ranging from approximately 50–60 ft in the northern portion of the basin to approximately 400–500 ft in the southern portion. The groundwater gradient naturally follows this variation in depth, flowing from the northwest to the southeast under Lake Elsinore. Two faults, Glen Ivy North and Rome Hill, appear to partially block groundwater flow. The average groundwater gradient is approximately 0.016 in the middle of the basin. Perchlorate has not been detected in the Elsinore Basin. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-6 The beneficial uses identified in the Basin Plan for the Elsinore Groundwater Basin include the following: MUN: Municipal AGR: Agricultural PROC: Process Water Supply 2.11.2.3 Soils/Erosion Potential Within the project area, the two most common hydrologic soils groups are Group A and Group B. Hydrologic Soil Group is a term that represents a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity after prolonged wetting, and depth to a layer with a very slow water transmission rate. Group A soils have a low runoff potential. These soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well-drained to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission. Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately well-drained to well-drained soils that have moderately fine to moderately coarse textures and have a moderate rate of water transmission. 2.11.3 Environmental Consequences 2.11.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, other than routine roadway and bridge maintenance, would be made. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would result in no short-term water quality impacts from construction- related activities. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. 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 off the project site in storm water runoff into receiving waters. During project-related construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. During construction, the total disturbed area from Alternative 2 would be approximately 41.1 acres. Cut and fill mass grading will be required for project construction. In general, preliminary plans (see Typical Cross-Sections and layout sheets in Appendix H) indicate that cut slopes and fill slopes are proposed at 2h:1v or flatter. Adjacent to ramps and freeway in selected Caltrans right-of-way areas where possible, the slopes will be limited to 4h:1v. Limited slope areas below bridge abutments may be at 1.5h:1v. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-7 In general, cut and fill for auxiliary lanes and the Main Street southbound entrance ramp are very minor and less than a few feet. Up to 25 ft of approach fills are proposed at the Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing, cuts up to 21 ft are proposed on the northbound deceleration lane and hook ramps, with minor cuts and fills less than 10 ft are proposed on the remainder of the hook ramps. Ramp and approach fills for new Franklin Street are up to 30 ft, and cut on the northbound exit ramp to Franklin Street is up to 36 ft. Auto Center Drive extension involves fills up to 30 ft and cuts up to 25 ft. Extension of Canyon Estates Drive and Camino Del Norte involves alternating cuts and fills up to 30 to 35 ft. Cuts will be made into overburden deposits such as existing fills, young fan deposits, and moderately consolidated older alluvium that can be readily excavated, as well as into granitic / metamorphic rock materials that are more difficult to excavate and may range from rippable to non-rippable. New fills will be placed over these same materials. The following areas are expected to involve substantial cuts in rock materials with the estimated maximum slope heights indicated: Canyon Estates Drive – up to 24 ft; Camino Del Norte – up to 32 ft; northbound Exit Ramp – up to 36 ft; and Auto Center Drive – up to 24 ft. The project would not affect the erosion potential of the soils in the project area. Several measures will be taken in order to avoid or reduce potential storm water impacts. As described in the Caltrans SWMP, BMPs will be designed and implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the Caltrans storm drain system to the MEP. Under the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit, the project would be required to prepare an SWPPP and implement Construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would be designed to minimize erosion and prevent spills. In addition, to minimize erosion and sediment deposition within the drainages, construction within the drainages would be limited to outside the rainy season. When Construction BMPs are properly designed, implemented, and maintained to address pollutants of concern and construction as presented in Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2 (provided below), no adverse water quality impacts would occur during construction of the project. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE For Alternative 3, pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction, the total disturbed area from Alternative 3 would be approximately 42.0 acres. Cut and fill impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. 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 off the project site in storm water runoff into receiving waters. When Construction BMPs are properly designed, implemented, and maintained to address pollutants of concern and construction as identified in Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2 (provided below), no adverse water quality impacts associated with Alternative 3 would occur during construction of the project. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE For Alternative 4, pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction, the total disturbed area from Alternative 4 would be approximately 41.0 acres. Cut-and-fill impacts Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-8 associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. 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 off the project site in storm water runoff into receiving waters. When Construction BMPs are properly designed, implemented, and maintained to address pollutants of concern and construction as identified in Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2 (provided below), no adverse water quality impacts associated with Alternative 4 would occur during construction of the project. 2.11.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no increase in impervious area or change in land use at the interchange. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in an increase in long-term pollutant loading. In addition, roadway runoff would remain untreated, similar to existing conditions. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Pollutants of concern during operation of a transportation facility include sediments, trash, petroleum products, metals, and chemicals. As identified in Table 2.11.A, the existing surface area within the project area is 36.3 acres. Alternative 2 would create approximately 19.0 acres of new impervious surface, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces within the project area to 55.3 acres. Table 2.11.A: Alternative 2 Impervious Surface Area Comparison Watershed Jurisdiction Impervious Surface Area (acres) Existing Net Increase Proposed Total Impervious Surface Area San Jacinto Valley (Lake Elsinore-San Jacinto River Basin, Hydrology Unit 802.31) State 25.0 15.6 40.6 Local 4.6 2.8 7.4 Temescal Creek (Reach 5 Mid-Section Line of Section 17 (Downstream end of freeway cut) to Elsinore G, Hydrology Unit 801.35) State 6.6 0.4 7.0 Local 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total (acres): 36.3 19.0 55.3 Source: Water Quality Assessment Report (June 2010). The project would alter the land use in the project area, replacing vacant, commercial parking uses, and residential uses with transportation uses that would change the concentrations of pollutants in storm water runoff. For example, bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides are typically higher in runoff from residential areas that have landscaping on site. Oil and grease and metals, from automobiles and machinery, are typically higher in runoff from commercial and transportation land uses. Therefore, runoff from the project would be expected to contain higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. Currently, there are no structural Treatment BMPs in place at the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. However, some existing highway runoffs infiltrate to vegetated medians and Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-9 shoulders via sheet flows, which are categorized as Design Pollution Prevention BMPs of the Project Planning and Design Guide or Low Impact Development. As part of the project, BMPs would be implemented to target constituents of concern in runoff from the project area. Potential Treatment BMPs include water quality basins, biofiltration swales, and/or media filters. Potential locations for treatment BMPs are described in more detail in Chapter 1. The project will include treatment BMPs. The treatment BMPs would target constituents of concerns within the Lake Elsinore watershed, which are phosphorus and nitrogen, as Lake Elsinore has an approved TMDL for Nutrients. The project would (1) comply with the requirements of Caltrans’s Statewide NPDES Permit (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NPDES Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS 618033), and any subsequent permit, (2) consider approved BMPs to treat the runoff from the project prior to discharge into the Temescal Creek, San Jacinto River-Lake Elsinore, and (3) install these BMPs where feasible for Alternative 2. When BMPs are implemented in accordance with NPDES Permit requirements, as stipulated in Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, below, operation of the project would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Pollutants of concern during operation of a transportation facility include sediments, trash, petroleum products, metals, and chemicals. As identified in Table 2.11.B, the existing impervious surface area within the project area is 36.3 acres. Alternative 3 would create approximately 20.9 acres of new impervious surface, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces within the project area to 57.2 acres. Table 2.11.B: Alternative 3 Impervious Surface Area Comparison Watershed Jurisdiction Impervious Surface Area (acres) Existing Net Increase Proposed Total Impervious Surface Area San Jacinto Valley (Lake Elsinore- San Jacinto River Basin, Hydrology Unit 802.31) State 25.0 17.5 42.5 Local 4.6 2.8 7.4 Temescal Creek (Reach 5 Mid-Section Line of Section 17 (Downstream end of freeway cut) to Elsinore G, Hydrology Unit 801.35) State 6.6 0.4 7.0 Local 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total (acres): 36.3 20.9 57.2 Source: Water Quality Assessment Report (June 2010). The project would alter the land use in the project area, replacing vacant, commercial, and residential uses with transportation uses that would change the concentrations of pollutants in storm water runoff. It is anticipated that this change in land use would result in stormwater runoff in the area containing higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-10 Roadway runoff in the project area is partially treated by infiltration to vegetated medians and shoulders via sheet flows. As part of the project, BMPs would be implemented to target constituents of concern in runoff from the project area. Potential Treatment BMPs for Alternative 3 include water quality basins, biofiltration swales, and/or media filters. Potential locations for treatment BMPs for Alternative 3 are described in more detail in Chapter 1. As identified for Alternative 2, the project under Alternative 3 is required to include treatment BMPs. The BMPs would treat runoff to the MEP, and would target constituents of concern, since Lake Elsinore has an approved TMDL for nutrients. When BMPs are implemented in accordance with NPDES Permit requirements, as stipulated in Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, below, operation of the project would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Pollutants of concern during operation of a transportation facility include sediments, trash, petroleum products, metals, and chemicals. As identified in Table 2.11.C, the existing impervious surface area within the project area is 36.3 acres. Alternative 4 would create approximately 18.4 acres of new impervious surface, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces within the project area to 54.7 acres. Table 2.11.C: Alternative 4 Impervious Surface Area Comparison Watershed Jurisdiction Impervious Surface Area (acres) Existing Net Increase Proposed Total Impervious Surface Area San Jacinto Valley (Lake Elsinore-San Jacinto River Basin, Hydrology Unit 802.31) State 25.0 15.0 40.0 Local 4.6 2.8 7.4 Temescal Creek (Reach 5 Mid-Section Line of Section 17 (Downstream end of freeway cut) to Elsinore G, Hydrology Unit 801.35) State 6.6 0.4 7.0 Local 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total (acres): 36.3 18.4 54.7 Source: Water Quality Assessment Supplemental Memorandum (January 2015). The project would alter the land use in the project area, replacing vacant, commercial, and residential uses with transportation uses that would change the concentrations of pollutants in storm water runoff. It is anticipated that this change in land use would result in stormwater runoff in the area containing higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. Roadway runoff in the project area is partially treated by infiltration to vegetated medians and shoulders via sheet flows. As part of the project, BMPs would be implemented to target constituents of concern in runoff from the project area. Potential Treatment BMPs for Alternative 4 include water quality basins, biofiltration swales, and/or media filters. Potential locations for treatment BMPs for Alternative 3 are described in more detail in Chapter 1. As identified for Alternative 2, the project under Alternative 4 is required to include treatment BMPs. The BMPs would treat runoff to the MEP, and would target constituents of concern, since Lake Elsinore has an approved TMDL for nutrients. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-11 When BMPs are implemented in accordance with NPDES Permit requirements, as stipulated in Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, below, operation of the project would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: IX. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, there is the potential for soil erosion and discharge of pollutants into drainages or storm drains. Construction of a new bridge overcrossing may contribute greater concentrations of typical road pollutants. Compliance with the Caltrans’ NPDES permits for construction and operation will minimize potential water quality impacts. Minimization Measures WQ-1 through WQ-3, which are standard conditions presented below in Section 2.11.4, would ensure impacts remain below a level of significance. IX. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The project involves making improvements to roadways and freeway interchanges in the area. Implementation of the project would not require the withdrawal of groundwater; therefore, the project would not result in the direct lowering of the local groundwater table. The project would not interfere with groundwater recharge as the project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area by the City. For these reasons, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impacts associated with this issue would occur, and no mitigation measure is required. IX. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously identified, the project would result in the conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces, which would alter the current drainage pattern. Compliance with the Caltrans’ NPDES permit requirements, as noted in Minimization Measure WQ-2, presented below in Section 2.11.4, would ensure impacts remain less than significant related to this issue. IX. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Compliance with the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program and the City’s erosion control requirements would ensure that significant water quality impacts and violations of standards and requirements would not occur. With compliance with these standard requirements, any water quality impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.11-12 2.11.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As part of compliance with the NPDES permits, selected Construction Site, Design Pollution Prevention, and Treatment BMPs will be incorporated into the final design of the reconstruction of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. The following measures are required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential project impacts to water quality: Minimization Measures WQ-1 The City of Lake Elsinore shall comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and any subsequent permit or individual permit if required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as they relate to construction activities for the project including dewatering. This shall include a Notification of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB at least 30 days prior to the start of construction, preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a Notice of Termination to the Santa Ana RWQCB upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site. WQ-2 The City of Lake Elsinore shall comply with the provisions of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003. The City shall follow the procedures outlined in the Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide, for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project. This shall include coordination with the Santa Ana RWQCB with respect to feasibility, maintenance, and monitoring of Treatment BMPs as set forth in Caltrans’ Statewide Storm Water Management Plan. WQ-3 The City of Lake Elsinore shall comply with the provisions of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NPDES Permit Order No. R8-2013-0024, NPDES No. CAS 618033, and any subsequent permit or individual permit if required by the RWQCB as they relate to post-construction and operational activities. The City shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in compliance with the NPDES Permit requirements. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-1 2.12 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography 2.12.1 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. Caltrans’ Office of Earthquake Engineering is responsible for assessing the seismic hazard for Caltrans projects. Structures are designed using the Caltrans’ 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 Caltrans’ Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Design Criteria. 2.12.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following document prepared for the project: Preliminary Geotechnical Report (June 2010) 2.12.2.1 Topography In the project area, elevations vary from approximately 1,400 ft (ft) above mean sea level south of Malaga Road to 1,308 ft between Railroad Canyon Road and San Jacinto River. Elevations on Interstate 15 (I-15) then rise to a maximum of about 1,420 ft, dropping again to about 1,350 ft at Main Street. Steeper rocky hillside areas are generally present on or adjacent to the northbound side of the alignment. These hillsides rise to peaks as high as approximately 1,900 ft. More gradually sloping alluvial fans surround the hillside areas. Canyon drainages dissect the hills and fan deposits. Water level in Lake Elsinore to the west typically has an elevation of 1,260 ft. Due to the hilly topography, and channel and roadway crossings, substantial cuts and fills were made to create the I-15 roadbed and to facilitate the grade separations at Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing, Franklin Street overcrossing, and Main Street undercrossing. 2.12.2.2 Geology The project area is generally underlain by intrusive Cretaceous granitic rock and Mesozoic metamorphic rock, with overlying deposits of sedimentary materials. The project alignment traverses mostly hillside rock areas and fan deposits at the base of these hillsides. Geologic units along and adjacent to the I-15 corridor generally consist of, in order of increasing age: Very Young Wash Deposits (Qw) include active channel deposits within San Jacinto River, primarily composed of unconsolidated late Holocene sands and silty sands with gravel, cobble, and boulder sized materials. Very Young Lacustrine Deposits (Ql) lie within the bottom of Lake Elsinore and consist of unconsolidated late Holocene deposits of primarily clays and silts. Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf) are found along the margins of San Jacinto River and Lake Elsinore and are composed of poorly consolidated Holocene to late Pleistocene deposits of sand and silt mixtures with some gravels. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-2 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf1) flank the base of rocky hillside areas and consist of poorly to moderately consolidated early Holocene to late Pleistocene deposits of sand and silt mixtures with some gravels. Old Alluvium (Qoa) is moderately consolidated Pleistocene alluvium, primarily sand silt mixtures and gravels. Cretaceous Granitic Rock (Kgr) and Volcanic Rock (Kv) includes a variety of Granitic and volcanic materials including hypabyssal Tonalite (Kgh), Gabbro (Kgb), Granodiorite (Kgd), and Estelle Mountain Volcanics (Kvem). Preliminary site observations indicate surface exposures range from decomposed to moderately weathered with relatively unweathered inclusions. Mesozoic Metasedimentary Rock (Mz) includes quartz-rich metasandstone and Quartzite (Mzq). Roadway embankment fills have been placed over the native materials, primarily at the bridge abutment approaches and other areas where the freeway crosses canyons or is raised above the natural grade. No permanent water table or perched groundwater was reported in the project area, with the exception of the San Jacinto River, where permanent groundwater is present near the channel bed elevation. Water was observed in the channel under low flow conditions during the site reconnaissance. Year-round groundwater should be anticipated in the river wash deposits, and levels will vary with flood stage. The remainder of the site is underlain by fan deposits and rock and generally appears to have no permanent groundwater table. Small washes and channels may contain seasonal groundwater, and perched groundwater from man-made sources may be present locally. 2.12.2.3 Soils No data are available on the embankment materials, but visual examination and the fact that they are compacted fills indicates they are likely medium-dense sand-silt mixtures. Alluvial fan soils underlying the fills generally consist of interbedded medium-dense-to-very-dense silty sands, sandy silts and sands with variable gravel. Other portions of the project site have alluvial materials described as a highly variable mix of loose-to-dense sand, silty sand, silt, gravels, cobbles, and boulders. 2.12.2.4 Faulting and Seismicity The two principal seismic considerations for most sites in Southern California are the potential for surface rupture along active fault traces and damage to structures due to seismically induced ground shaking. The project alignment is within the Perris block; a relatively stable, rectangular- in-plan area located between the active Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones in the northern Peninsular Ranges Province. These fault zones, a major component of the San Andreas Fault system, consist of a series of northwest-striking right lateral strike-slip faults located in a graben- like structure.1 The Elsinore Fault Zone and the San Jacinto Fault Zone are strike slip faults capable of generating Magnitude 7.6 and 7.5 earthquakes, respectively. 1 In geology, a graben is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults. A graben is the result of a block of land being downthrown producing a valley with a distinct scarp on each side. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-3 The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, and no faults considered capable of surface rupture are mapped as crossing the site or projecting toward the site in the geologic literature reviewed. The Elsinore Glen Ivy Fault is the closest to the site at a distance of about 0.9 to 1.1 miles from the project alignment. Secondary effects of seismic shaking are non-tectonic processes that are directly related to strong seismic shaking. Ground deformation, including fissures, settlement, displacement, and loss of bearing strength, are common expressions of these processes and are among the leading causes of damage to structures during moderate-to-large earthquakes. Secondary effects leading to ground deformation include liquefaction, settlement, and landsliding. Other hazards indirectly related to seismic shaking are inundation, tsunamis, and seiches. LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated soils behave similarly to fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater elevation, soil type and grain size distribution, relative density of soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands and nonplastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands have also been proven susceptible to liquefaction. In addition, soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated low-density sands and silts within 50 ft of the ground surface. Based on information contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (June 2010), the project site is underlain by nonliquefiable rock (Kgr, Mz) materials, overlain by a variable depth of liquefaction susceptible loose to medium dense granular alluvial soils (Qyf, Qyf1). However, groundwater does not appear to be present in these liquefaction susceptible deposits. SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT Strong ground shaking can cause settlement by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly packed, thereby reducing pore space. SEISMICALLY INDUCED LANDSLIDES No existing landslides or landslide-prone formations are known to exist within the project area. SEISMICALLY INDUCED INUNDATION Strong seismic ground motion can cause dams and levees to fail, resulting in damage to structures and properties located downstream of those water retention facilities. The planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange is located within an identified dam inundation area. However, it is anticipated that such inundation would be within the confines of the 100-year floodplain. TSUNAMIS AND SEICHES A tsunami, or seismically generated sea wave, is generally created by a large, distant earthquake occurring near a deep ocean trough. A seiche is an earthquake-induced wave in a confined body of water such as a lake or reservoir. Damage from tsunamis is typically confined to coastal areas that are 20 ft or less above sea level. COMPRESSIBLE SOILS When a load such as fill soils is placed, the underlying soil layers undergo a certain amount of compression due to the deformation and relocation of soil particles and the expulsion of water or air from the void spaces between the grains. Some settlement occurs immediately after a load is Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-4 applied, and some additional settlement occurs over time after placement of the load. For engineering applications, it is important to estimate the total amount of settlement that will occur following placement of a given load and the rate of compression (consolidation). EXPANSIVE SOILS Untreated expansive soils underlying a foundation, slab, or road alignment can cause damage, including heaving, tilting, and cracking. The soils on the project area are predominantly sands, with varying amounts of silt and gravel; therefore, the clay content of soils on the project site is not substantial. CORROSIVE SOILS Corrosive soils contain constituents or physical characteristics that react with concrete (water- soluble sulfates) or ferrous metals (chlorides, low percentage of hydrogen levels, and low electrical resistivity). Fine-grained soils (predominantly clays) are the typical soil types responsible for corrosive site conditions. 2.12.3 Environmental Consequences 2.12.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in any soil disturbance; therefore, no temporary impacts related to geology and soils would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Because the native soils in the project area are anticipated to be predominantly sands and silts with relatively minor amounts of clay, the soils may be affected by moderate-to-severe erosion. These materials would be particularly prone to erosion during construction of Alternative 2, especially during heavy rains. Therefore, construction of Alternative 2 could result in adverse impacts related to erosion. Erosion impacts related to water quality are evaluated in Section 2.11. Soils in the project area could undergo “immediate” elastic settlement, which usually occurs during brief earthwork activities and shortly after. For new embankments and widening of existing embankments, elastic settlement is anticipated to range from less than 0.25 inch to 1 inch because of the compact-to-dense nature of the subsurface soils. This settlement is within the tolerable range for most conventional structures. Therefore, impacts related to elastic settlement during construction would be minimal, and would not be hazardous to workers during construction. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Temporary impacts associated with the construction of Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Because the native soils in the project area are anticipated to be predominantly sands and silts with relatively minor amounts of clay, the soils may be affected by moderate-to-severe erosion. Therefore, construction of the Build Alternative could result in adverse impacts related to erosion. Erosion impacts related to water quality are evaluated in Section 2.11. Impacts related to elastic settlement during construction would be minimal. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-5 ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Temporary impacts associated with the construction of Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Because the native soils in the project area are anticipated to be predominantly sands and silts with relatively minor amounts of clay, the soils may be affected by moderate-to-severe erosion. Therefore, construction of the Build Alternative could result in adverse impacts related to erosion. Erosion impacts related to water quality are evaluated in Section 2.11. Impacts related to elastic settlement during construction would be minimal. 2.12.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not involve new structures; therefore, geology and soils conditions in the project area would not change. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Fault-Induced Ground Rupture The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, and no faults considered capable of surface rupture are mapped as crossing the site or projecting toward the site in the geologic literature reviewed. The closest distance from the project site to the Elsinore Glen Ivy Fault is about 0.9 mile. Therefore, the potential for ground surface fault rupture in the project area is considered low. As such, no special precautions or restrictions during project operation related to fault-induced ground rupture are required, but the project will be built to current seismic design standards. Seismic Ground Shaking Faults in the project area have been documented as producing earthquakes with a magnitude greater than moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.0. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) was estimated following the 2009 Caltrans seismic design procedure. Depending on soil conditions and location within the site, the computed ground motion in the project area could range from about 0.66 to 0.73 g (acceleration of gravity). Therefore, the structures constructed for Alternative 2 are potentially subject to adverse impacts related to seismic ground shaking. Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking The potential secondary effects of seismic shaking on Alternative 2 are discussed below. Liquefaction Given the lack of groundwater and/or shallow bedrock, the potential for liquefaction to occur on the project site during a seismic event is low to negligible. The exception is the San Jacinto River wash deposits (Qw), which are permanently saturated loose-to-medium-dense granular soils with high liquefaction potential. However, since no grading or improvements are proposed for this project in the vicinity of San Jacinto River Bridge, liquefaction would not be a design issue for this project. Therefore, the project site would not likely be subject to adverse impacts related to seismically induced liquefaction. However, as detailed in Measure GEO-1, the potential for liquefaction effects on the structures constructed for Alternative 2 would be further investigated during final design. Seismically Induced Settlement Seismically induced settlement due to liquefaction is anticipated to be small, if not unlikely, in the project area. In addition, because of the compact-to-dense nature of subsurface soils, seismic settlement of dry in-situ soils is expected to be small. Therefore, the project site Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-6 would not likely be subject to adverse impacts related to seismically induced settlement. However, as detailed in Measure GEO-1, the potential for seismically induced settlement effects on the structures constructed for Alternative 2 would be further investigated during final design. Seismically Induced Landslides The potential for seismically induced landsliding is considered low, and the project area would not be subject to impacts related to seismically induced landslides. No special precautions or restrictions during project design and operation of Alternative 2 are required. Seismically Induced Inundation Railroad Canyon Dam is located outside of the project limits at Canyon Lake a drinking water reservoir. If rainfall causes the lake level to exceed the level spillway elevation, water would flow down the San Jacinto River to Lake Elsinore. Flood gates at the base of the dam would also be opened to reduce flooding impacts and bring the lake down to the level below the spillway. Dam failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam would cause flooding in the project area. Therefore, Alternative 2 could be adversely impacted by seismically induced inundation. However, it is anticipated that such inundation coming from Railroad Canyon Dam would be within the confines of the 100-year floodplain. Impacts related to floodplains and flooding as a result of being within a floodplain are discussed in Section 2.10. Tsunamis and Seiches The project site is not near the coast. Although the project site is near Lake Elsinore, it is not anticipated that seiches generated on the lake would reach the project area due to elevation differences (i.e., the project area varies from 160 to 48 ft above the elevation of Lake Elsinore). Therefore, Alternative 2 is not at risk of inundation from a tsunami or seiche. No special precautions or restrictions during project design and operation of the Build Alternative are required. Slope Stability Stability of Natural Slopes No areas of major concern for rockfalls were observed in preliminary site reconnaissance. With the currently proposed slope gradients, potential for rockfalls is considered low for properly constructed rock cuts. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not be adversely impacted by instability associated with natural slopes. No special precautions or restrictions during project design and operation of Alternative 2 are required. Stability of Proposed Slopes The final design of the Build Alternative may include the construction of manufactured slopes. The final design would incorporate appropriate design features to address slope stability constraints in manufactured slopes, as necessary. Because Alternative 2 would include manufactured slopes, the structures constructed for that alternative are considered to be subject to potential adverse impacts related to the stability of those slopes. As detailed in Measure GEO-1, slope stability would be further investigated during final design. Subgrade Stability Compressible Soils The subsurface soils on the project area are predominantly granular; therefore, the soils are not expected to undergo consolidation settlement (settlement over long periods of time). Alternative 2 would not be adversely affected by compressible soils. However, as detailed in Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-7 Measure GEO-1, the potential for soil-compression-related impacts would be further investigated during final design. Expansive Soils On-site soils are anticipated to be non-expansive or have a very low expansion potential. However, there may be localized, discontinuous layers of clayey soils with higher expansion potential within the project area. Therefore, Alternative 2 may result in adverse impacts associated with expansive soils. As detailed in Measure GEO-1, the potential for soil expansion would be further investigated during final design. Corrosive Soils The native subsurface soils in the project area are composed predominantly of coarse- grained soils (sand and silty sand) with little clay binder; therefore, corrosive soil is not expected. The construction of Alternative 2 would not be adversely affected by corrosive soils. However, as detailed in Measure GEO-1, the potential for soil corrosion effects on the project structures would be further investigated during final design. Erosion Since the native soils in the project area are anticipated to be predominantly sands and silts with relatively minor amounts of clay, there is the potential for moderate to severe erosion on the slopes. These slopes and materials would be particularly prone to erosion from runoff from the new pavement areas, especially during heavy rains. Therefore, operation of Alternative 2 could result in adverse water quality impacts related to erosion. Erosion impacts associated with this alternative are evaluated in Section 2.11. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would have the same type of geologic site characteristics as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, permanent impacts that would occur with implementation of Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would have the same type of geologic site characteristics as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, permanent impacts that would occur with implementation of Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: VI. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No Impact. While the project site is located in a seismically active region, the project site is not located within a known “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Act. In addition, no faults considered capable of surface Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-8 rupture are mapped as crossing the site or projecting toward the site in the geologic literature reviewed. The Elsinore Glen Ivy Fault is the closest to the site at a distance of about 1.4 kilometers (0.87 mile) from the project alignment. The project would not result in the construction of habitable structures; therefore, no potential for the loss, injury, or death resulting from fault rupture would occur. No mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Like all of southern California, the project site is located in a seismically active area and, therefore, will continue to be subject to ground shaking resulting from activity on local and regional faults. The project site is located within Seismic Zone 4, which includes those areas of California that have experienced major historic earthquakes (Richter magnitude greater than seven) and high levels of recent seismicity. While the project site may be subject to strong ground shaking on site, the project does not include the construction of structures designed for human occupancy. However, faults in the project area have been documented as producing earthquakes with a magnitude greater than moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.0. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was estimated following the 2009 Caltrans seismic design procedure. Depending on soil conditions and location within the site, the computed ground motion in the project area could range from about 0.66 to 0.73 g. Therefore, the structures constructed for the project are potentially subject to potentially significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking. Adherence to Minimization Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, presented below in Section 2.12.4, would reduce impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, unconsolidated, water- laden soils are subjected to shaking as a result of an earthquake, causing the soils to lose cohesion. The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a project site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity, sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures, and on the grain size, plasticity, relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the project site. Based on information contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (June 2010),1 given the lack of groundwater and/or shallow bedrock, the potential for liquefaction to occur on the project site during a seismic event is low to negligible. The exception is the San Jacinto River wash deposits (Qw), which are permanently saturated loose-to-medium-dense granular soils with high liquefaction potential. However, since no significant grading or improvements are proposed for this project in the vicinity of San Jacinto River Bridge, liquefaction would not be a design issue for this project. Adherence to Minimization Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which are standard conditions, presented below in Section 2.12.4, would minimize impacts associated with this issue and ensure impacts remain less than significant. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The project site is not within an area of identified steep slopes or susceptible to landslide hazards nor is it located near lands identified as having a landslide 1 Group Delta Consultants, Inc. 2010. Preliminary Geotechnical Report I-15/Railroad Canyon Road and I-15/Franklin Street Interchange Improvements, Lake Elsinore, California. June. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-9 susceptibility; therefore, landslides are not a geotechnical constraint for the site.1 The potential for seismically induced landsliding is considered low and the project area would not be subject to impacts related to seismically induced landslides. No special precautions or restrictions during project design and operation of the project would be required. As the project would not result in a landslide hazard, no impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. VI. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the native soils in the project area are anticipated to be predominantly sands and silts with relatively minor amounts of clay, the soils may be affected by moderate-to-severe erosion. These materials would be particularly prone to erosion during construction of the project, especially during heavy rains. Therefore, construction of the project could result in adverse impacts related to erosion. Adherence to Minimization Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which are standard conditions, presented below in Section 2.12.4, would minimize impacts associated with this issue and ensure impacts remain less than significant. VI. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence is caused by a variety of activities, which includes (but is not limited to) withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and hydro-compaction. The project does not include the withdrawal of groundwater or other resources from underground sources. The subsurface soils on the project area are predominantly granular; therefore, the soils are not expected to undergo consolidation settlement (settlement over long periods of time). It is anticipated that the project would not be significantly affected by compressible soils. However, adherence to Minimization Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which are standard conditions, presented below in Section 2.12.4, would ensure that impacts associated with this issue remain less than significant. VI. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils generally have a significant amount of clay particles, which can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The extent of shrink/swell is influenced by the amount and kind of clay in the soil. The occurrence of these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. The distribution of expansive soils can be widely dispersed, and they can occur in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins. The soils on the project area are predominantly sands, with varying amounts of silt and gravel; therefore, the clay content of soils on the project site is not substantial. On-site soils are anticipated to be non-expansive or have a very low expansion potential. However, there may be localized, discontinuous layers of clayey soils with higher expansion potential within the project area. Adherence to Minimization Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which are standard conditions, presented below in Section 2.12.4, would ensure that impacts associated with this issue remain less than significant. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.12-10 VI. e) Would the project have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project is an infrastructure improvement project and does not require a septic tank or sewer system. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will occur. No mitigation is required. 2.12.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The measures below would minimize the potential impacts of geotechnical and soils conditions on structures constructed under the Build Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 of the project: Minimization Measures GEO-1 During the final design, a detailed geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a qualified geotechnical/geologic engineer to prepare the Final Geotechnical Report. The geotechnical report will build on the information in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, focusing the analysis on potential geotechnical constraints to the selected build alternative and the specific design features included in the final engineering to address those constraints. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report identified potential soil-related constraints and hazards, such as manufactured slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, or secondary effects of seismic shaking. The detailed analysis in the Final Geotechnical Report will address those constraints along the entire alignment of the selected alternative with appropriate design features addressing those constraints included in the final project design. The project-specific findings and recommendations of the geotechnical investigation shall be summarized in a Final Geotechnical Report to be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore for review and approval. Those findings and recommendations shall be incorporated in the final design of the Build Alternative. The report will specifically include: Evaluation of expansive soils, compressible soils, and corrosive soils along the selected alignment and recommendations regarding construction procedures and/or incorporation of design criteria in the final design to minimize the effect of these soils on the project. Identification of potential liquefiable areas within the project limits and recommendations and/or design criteria to minimize the effect of liquefaction on the project. Demonstration that manufactured slopes can be designed to address slope stability. GEO-2 All of the following requirements will be included in the final design for the project: Structures shall be designed to resist the maximum credible earthquake associated with nearby faults. Design and construction of the project in accordance with California Department of Transportation guidelines, current regulations, and the California Building Code. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-1 2.13 Paleontology 2.13.1 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 or funded projects. 16 United States Code (USC) 461-467 (the National Registry of Natural Landmarks) establishes the National Natural Landmarks (NNL) program. Under this program, property owners agree to protect biological and geological resources such as paleontological features. Federal agencies and their agents must consider the existence and location of designated NNLs, and of areas found to meet the criteria for national significance, in assessing the effects of their activities on the environment under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 16 USC 470(a) (the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act) prohibits the excavation, removal, or damage of any paleontological resources located on federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture without first obtaining an appropriate permit. The statute establishes criminal and civil penalties for fossil theft and vandalism on federal lands. 23 USC 1.9(a) requires that the use of federal-aid funds must be in conformity with federal and state law. 23 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 above any state law. Under California law, paleontological resources are protected by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.13.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (April 2010) Paleontological Resources Addendum Memorandum (Paleontological Addendum Memorandum) (January 2015) In the summer of 2014, the Project Development Team (PDT) and the City of Lake Elsinore introduced Alternative 4. The Paleontological Addendum Memorandum was prepared to address Alternative 4 and to determine whether the recommendations contained in the PIR/PER prepared in 2010, which address Alternatives 2 and 3, are sufficient to address Alternative 4. The following is a discussion of the research conducted in support of the PIR/PER (April 2010). A paleontological literature review was conducted using unpublished reports, paleontological assessment and monitoring reports, field notes, and published literature to identify fossil localities within the project area and the surrounding area. A paleontological resource records search was conducted through the Geological Sciences Division of the San Bernardino County Museum and through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. A vehicular survey of the project was conducted in November 2009. The survey verified the results of the literature review and the analysis of the geologic mapping along the rights-of-way. The vehicular survey also verified lithologic descriptions and provided field observations of specific lithologies that support the potential for preservation of fossils in specific formations. In addition, a foot survey with intuitive deviations was conducted in association with the vehicular survey in November 2009, by walking along shoulders of unpaved streets and roadways, and unoccupied parcels in the project study area. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-2 The original PIR/PER (2010) included a “Research Area” that extended 1,000 feet (ft) outside the project Area of Potential Disturbance (APD). Because the new APD is within the original “Research Area,” no new sediment types were found in the new APD for the project. The paleontological sensitivities that were assigned to the geologic units are still valid, and do not need to be changed. As such, the findings and mitigation measures discussed in the original report are sufficient to mitigate the newly added APD contained within Alternative 4, and no additional studies are required. The project is located in the northwestern Peninsular Range Province of southern California. This province is bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges, on the east by the Colorado Desert, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The province extends south and includes the entire Baja California Peninsula. The project area is within the northern portion of the Elsinore Trough. The Elsinore Trough is a structural feature created by shearing along branches of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The Elsinore Fault is located along the west margin of the Perris Block, separating the latter from the Santa Ana Mountains of the Peninsular Range Physiographic Province to the south. Geologic mapping indicates that the project area is located on deposits of late Holocene Alluvium and Holocene to late Pleistocene Alluvium (Qa and Qya) primarily derived from the west-flowing Santa Ana River. As illustrated in Figure 2.13.1, based on the soils within the project site, there is a high paleontological sensitivity in portions of the project area. The geotechnical report indicates that excavation for the project will encounter Holocene to late Pleistocene deposits of sand and silt mixtures with some gravels (Qyf, Qyf1) and Old Pleistocene Alluvium (Qo), which is primarily sand and silt mixed with gravel stringers. These fossiliferous sediments crop out at the surface and may also be encountered below the surface under most of the project. Compact Pleistocene silty sands and sandy silts are visible on the surface of the project area. Boring logs suggest that the fine-grained character of these sediments is suitable for preservation of fossils. Their brown-to-red-brown color supports Pleistocene age. The presence of gray-green micaceous silts with organic material at an elevation of 1,250 ft above mean sea level (amsl) may represent a Pleistocene high-stand of Lake Elsinore slightly above its current elevation of 1,240 ft amsl. Preliminary engineering data regarding depth of excavation suggest that excavation may reach depths of 22 ft in certain areas. Based on the PIR/PER study, there is potential for near-surface paleontological resources to occur at depths below 5 ft of the ground surface. This depth of occurrence of Pleistocene fossils is consistent with that elsewhere in the Elsinore Trough of the Peninsular Range Province near Temecula, Murrieta, Elsinore, and Corona. Table 2.13.A provides the depths that excavation will reach at various project-related structures. Areas designated to receive fill will require site preparation work including removal and recompaction of native materials. Some structures are likely to require support on deep foundations (e.g., piles) that will penetrate through fill into native soils. Foundations and walls may be excavated into native sediments or in engineered (compacted) fill. SOURCE: Bing Maps (2010); Preliminary Geologic Map of the Elsinore 7.5' Quadrangle (2003) I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-13-1_PaleoSensitivity.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGU RE 2.13.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Paleontological Sensitivity 0 1000 2000 FEET Paleontological Identification Report/PaleontologicalEvaluation Report Study A rea (2014) Paleontological Sensitivity High Sensitivity Low Sensitivity S!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-4 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-5 Table 2.13.A: Maximum Depth of Excavation (ft) Location Maximum Depth of Excavation Maximum Height of Embankment Comments Freeway Auxiliary Lane Widening 3 2 Railroad Canyon Road 3 3 New Franklin Street 5 30 Auto Center Drive 22 32 Canyon Estate Drive-Camino Del Norte 17 27 Railroad Canyon Road Undercrossing 3 26 New embankment pipe depth ± 60 ft Franklin Street Overcrossing (New Bridge) 3 27 New embankment pipe depth ± 60 ft Grape Street Northbound Off-Ramp 3 15 Grape Street Northbound On-Ramp 3 18 Casino Drive Southbound Off-Ramp 13 1 Casino Drive Southbound On-Ramp 11 1 Franklin Street Southbound Off-Ramp 3 24 Franklin Street Southbound On-Ramp 3 25 Franklin Street Northbound Off-Ramp 3 28 Franklin Street Northbound On-Ramp 3 14 Main Street Southbound On-Ramp 3 2 Retaining Walls: Franklin Street 4 23 Retaining Walls: Casino Drive Southbound On-Ramp 4 8 Retaining Walls: Railroad Canyon Road 4 12 Drainage Culverts 8 27 Soundwall Depth (if applicable) 16 Source: SC Engineering (2014). ft = foot/feet 2.13.3 Environmental Consequences 2.13.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative does not include any changes to the physical environment; therefore, no temporary impacts to paleontological resources would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to paleontological resources. The potential impacts to paleontological resources would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to paleontological Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-6 resources. The potential impacts to paleontological resources would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to paleontological resources. The potential impacts to paleontological resources would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. 2.13.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not include any excavation in the project area. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts related to paleontological resources. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Portions of the project are located in areas identified with high paleontological sensitivity at surface and at depth, as well as areas of low paleontological sensitivity. Grading and excavation will occur with implementation of Alternative 2. Previously referenced Table 2.13.A provides the maximum depth of excavations in areas of paleontological sensitivity where proposed overcrossings, walls, culverts, and ramps are located. The I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement project is anticipated to disturb sediments with high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. The project is located in areas identified as high paleontological sensitivity at the surface and at depth. Two fossil localities are known from within 2 miles of the project, and one is as close as 0.5 mile to the project. Both localities are located within the same sediments that underlie the project improvements. Based on the positive results of this PIR/PER study, impact minimization measures are proposed below that will provide the same level for protection as a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Paleontological Mitigation Program (PMP). These paleontological resource impact minimization measures, as specified below in Measure PAL-1 shall be incorporated into the plans, specifications, and estimates for the project. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE As identified in Figure 2.13.1, portions of the project are located in areas identified with high paleontological sensitivity at surface and at depth, as well as areas of low paleontological sensitivity. Grading and excavation will occur with implementation of Alternative 3 in an area with high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Previously referenced Table 2.13.A provides the maximum depth of excavations in areas of paleontological sensitivity where proposed overcrossings, walls, culverts, and ramps are located. Two fossil localities are known from within 2 miles of the project, and one is as close as 0.5 mile to the project. Both localities are located within the same sediments that underlie the project improvements. Based on the positive results of this PIR/PER study, impact minimization measures are proposed below that will provide the same level for protection as a Caltrans PMP. These paleontological resource impact minimization measures, as specified below in Measure PAL-1 shall be incorporated into the plans, specifications, and estimates for the project. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-7 ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE As shown in Figure 2.13.1, portions of the project are located in areas identified with high paleontological sensitivity at surface and at depth, as well as areas of low paleontological sensitivity. Grading and excavation will occur with implementation of the Build Alternative in an area with high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Previously referenced Table 2.13.A provides the maximum depth of excavations in areas of paleontological sensitivity where proposed overcrossings, walls, culverts, and ramps are located. Two fossil localities are known from within 2 miles of the project, and one is as close as 0.5 mile to the project. Both localities are located within the same sediments that underlie the project improvements. Based on the positive results of this PIR/PER study, impact minimization measures are proposed below that will provide the same level for protection as a Caltrans PMP. These paleontological resource impact minimization measures, as specified below in Measure PAL-1 shall be incorporated into the plans, specifications, and estimates for the project. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: V. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Portions of the project are located in areas identified with high paleontological sensitivity at surface and at depth, as well as areas of low paleontological sensitivity. Grading and excavation will occur with implementation of the project. The project is anticipated to disturb sediments with a high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Two fossil localities are known from within 2 miles of the project; one within a 0.5 mile of the project. Both are in the same sediments that occur on the project site. Based on the positive results of the Paleontological Investigation Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (2010)1 and the Paleontological Resources Addendum Memorandum (2015),2 mitigation measures are proposed that will provide the same level for protection as a Caltrans Paleontological Mitigation Program (PMP). These paleontological resource impact minimization measures, as specified below in Mitigation Measure PAL-1, presented below in Section 2.13.4, shall be incorporated into the plans, specifications, and estimates for the project. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following measure is required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential project impacts to paleontological resources: Mitigation Measure PAL-1 Prior to the beginning of construction activities, the City of Lake Elsinore (City), in accordance with the guidelines on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Environmental Reference website, the County of Riverside guidelines, and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall develop a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for implementation during the 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 2010. Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation Report Interstate 15 and Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project. April. 2 LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Paleontological Resources Addendum Memorandum. January. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.13-8 excavation phase of the project. The PMP shall be prepared and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) A pre-construction field survey shall be conducted, followed by salvage of surface paleontological resources, if necessary. (2) All grading and excavation in sediments with the potential to contain paleontological resources shall be monitored by trained paleontological crews working under the direction of a qualified professional. Monitors shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant or large specimens. Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. (3) The fossils shall be stabilized, salvaged, and removed to safe off-site storage. (4) The fossils shall undergo preparation, identification, and analysis to allow their identification. (5) The fossils shall be curated into the systematic storage system of an established institutional repository. (6) A Paleontological Mitigation Report signifying completion of the PMP shall be prepared and submitted to Caltrans. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-1 2.14 Hazardous Waste and Materials 2.14.1 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 wastes. 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 California 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 cleanup 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 health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with 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. 2.14.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following document prepared for the project: Updated Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (November 2016) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-2 A previous version of this ISA was prepared and approved by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in November 2010. In response to the new ASTM E1527-13 standard, which went into effect on December 30, 2013, the ISA was updated and approved in July 2015. Due to an outdated records search, an additional update to the ISA approved in July 2015 was conducted. While there were no substantial changes to the site or regulatory data, there were minor changes to incidental dumping in the vicinity of the project limits. The following were conducted as part of this most recent, November 2016 ISA: Environmental Database Review: A records search of government environmental databases was conducted using the Radius Map Report prepared by EDR (Environmental Data Resources, October 11, 2016). This report meets the government records search requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and the California Department of Transportation Project Development Procedures Manual, Guidelines for ISA (Caltrans, 1999) for the project area and properties up to approximately 0.25 mile from the project area. However, the search of the National Priority List (NPL) was for a 1-mile radius. Agency Records Review: The Riverside County Health Services Agency, Environmental Health Department, and The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) were contacted with regard to obtaining and reviewing documents for properties located within and adjacent to the project area. Data contained on their websites were reviewed for any relevant information. Historic Research: Aerial photographs, topographic maps, oil well maps, and parcel maps were reviewed. Site Reconnaissance: On October 13, 2016, a reconnaissance-level survey of the subject site was conducted, consisting of observation and documentation of existing site conditions and nature of the neighboring property development within 0.25 mile of the subject site from public right-of-ways and public access points. The following hazards are potentially of concern for the project area: Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL). Lead is generally encountered in unpaved areas (or formerly unpaved areas) adjoining older roads primarily as a result of deposition from historical vehicle emissions. The project area is and has been historically part of State Route 71 (since before 1967) and Interstate 15 (I-15) (after 1980). Therefore, the potential for historical soil impacts from ADL exists. However, a recent ADL study has been completed for the I-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) from the San Bernardino-Riverside County Line to near Murrieta which included the segment of the Railroad Canyon interchange. Lead-Based Paint (LBP). It is possible for elevated lead concentrations to be present within the striping paint within the existing eastbound on- and off-ramps at Railroad Canyon Road. In addition, it is possible for LBP to be present in buildings constructed before 1979 within the project area, including a residence and nine bridges. Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM). An asbestos survey was not performed as part of the ISA. One permanent residential structure is present on the subject site, located at 609 Flint Street and considered to be a full acquisition. There is a potential for this structure to contain ACM. The following hazards are of potential concern for the Franklin Street interchange area: Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-3 Soil Impacts. The residence at 609 Flint Street that would be required for a full parcel acquisition may contain LBP and ACM. Additionally, soil impacts from lead may be present surrounding the structures, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) due to and termite pesticides applied near the foundation of the house, and petroleum and metals deposits from inoperable vehicles were present on this property. Soil impacts may be present on a property required for a partial acquisition at 606 Minthorn Street due to vehicles stored north of the residence. Cell Towers. The partial parcel acquisition east of the residential property required for full acquisition at 609 Flint Street is currently the site of a cell tower operated by American Tower Corporation and has the site name of EMWD Rancho Dr. Chemical use at this facility is unknown. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Mercury. PCBs may be present in the pole- mounted transformers located along and within the State right-of-way or on partial acquisition parcels and adjacent properties. There are also several pad-mounted transformers on the two commercial properties being acquired (Sizzler and Pizza Hut). However, based on historical records review, both of these structures appear to be of fairly recent construction (built after 1980), and therefore, PCBs are not anticipated. Debris. Scattered debris including domestic trash and waste tires are scattered across the vacant land north of I-15 between Main Street and Franklin Street. This condition represents a low risk to the project area; however, waste tires encountered within the partial acquisition areas should be disposed of properly. Drug Waste Response. A drug lab waste response was performed at the intersection of Main Street and Camino Del Norte and Avenue 6 and Franklin Street within the project area. The waste was cleaned up, and both incidents represent an Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) with low risk to the project area. Landfills. The Elsinore Sanitary Landfill is located at the north end of Franklin Street up- gradient of the project area. This landfill is monitored and managed by the Riverside County Waste Management Department, and no enforcement actions are recorded for this facility. The facility is a CREC and poses a low risk to the project area as groundwater is not expected to be encountered during the project construction activities. Gas Stations. The 76 Station located at 515 N. Main Street is down-gradient of the project area. The case is closed, and represents a HREC with a low risk to the project area. The following hazards are of potential concern for Alternative 2: There are no additional signs of recognized environmental condition (RECs) associated with Alternative 2 aside from those discussed for the Franklin Street interchange. The following hazards are of potential concern for Alternative 3: In addition to the hazards of potential concern discussed for the Franklin Street interchange, the vacant restaurant building (Sizzler) located at 31712 Casino Drive and Pizza Hut located at 31736 Casino Drive may contain LBP and ACM. The following hazards are of potential concern for Alternative 4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) were noted to exist within the project area (a gas station along Grape Street, a gas station along Diamond Drive, and a gas station along Mission Trail). These three LUSTs have impacted soils and groundwater. The potential soil impacts from these LUSTs appear to be contained on site, and are not anticipated to affect Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-4 the proposed partial acquisition areas. The monitoring wells associated with these LUSTs should be protected or abandoned if impacted by construction activities. Eileen’s Dry Cleaners located in the shopping center at 351 Railroad Canyon Road is required for a partial parcel acquisition and temporary construction easements (TCEs). The drycleaner has used halogenated solvents in the past, but no reported releases or violations exist. Dumped domestic trash, tires, and wood pieces have been observed on vacant land proposed for easements and TCEs. 2.14.3 Environmental Consequences 2.14.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not involve ground or structure disturbance; therefore, no temporary impacts related to hazardous waste materials would occur. ALTERNATIVES 2, 3 AND 4: BUILD ALTERNATIVES The Build Alternatives would involve disturbance of existing soils and structures; therefore, hazardous soil contaminants (total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH], LBP, and ADL) and structural materials (PCBs, LBP, and ACM) may be encountered during project construction. Although the existing bridges will not be affected by project construction, one residential structure on a parcel that will be acquired for project construction will require an ACM and LBP survey when the building is demolished. Contact with hazardous materials during construction would be minimized through a pre-construction site investigation and sampling of suspect hazardous materials. Soils exceeding State criteria for hazardous waste are required to be disposed of at the appropriate Class I or II facility. Each of the Build Alternatives has a similar potential to be affected by existing hazardous waste/materials generators or handling sites, because the number of these sites within the right- of-way and vicinity of each Build Alternative is similar. Site investigations would be performed on all hazardous materials sites within the right-of-way to determine whether hazardous waste/materials are present on site and approved investigation, remediation, and disposal procedures for contaminated sites would be followed. A Site Investigation Work Plan will be prepared and submitted to Caltrans for review and approval prior to soil testing. Hazardous waste/materials have the potential to be present in building materials, utilities, and paint. Structures and asphalt/concrete paving materials that would be removed or modified as part of the project may contain ACMs, PCBs, mercury or LBP, and/or other hazardous materials, which could be released into the environment if not properly handled, removed, and disposed. In addition, transformers that would be removed or relocated during construction of the project should be considered PCB-containing unless labeled or tested otherwise. Leaking transformers that impact adjacent soils would be a concern during project construction because they could affect construction workers and the environment. Traffic striping and pavement- marking materials (paint, thermoplastic, permanent tape, and temporary tape) that would be removed as part of the project may contain elevated concentrations of metals such as lead. Removal of these materials during project construction could affect construction workers and the surrounding environment. Consistent with Caltrans policies, as well as local, State, and federal regulations, investigation, remediation, and disposal procedures for hazardous building materials would be followed. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-5 Aerially deposited lead (ADL) from the historical use of leaded gasoline, exists along roadways throughout California. There is the likely presence of soils with elevated concentrations of lead as a result of ADL on the state highway system right of way within the limits of the project alternatives. Soil determined to contain lead concentrations exceeding stipulated thresholds must be managed under the July 1, 2016, ADL Agreement between Caltrans and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. This ADL Agreement allows such soils to be safely reused within the project limits as long as all requirements of the ADL Agreement are met. As identified above, a recent ADL study has been completed for the I-15 CIP from the San Bernardino-Riverside County Line to near Murrieta, which included the segment of the project. This ADL study concluded that no significant risks from ADL deposits exist within the project limits. Soil borings conducted for the ADL study revealed that soils are non-hazardous. Parcels with current use or evidence of past use may contain elevated concentrations of pesticides. Excavation of pesticide-impacted soil could affect construction workers and the surrounding environment. Consistent with Caltrans policies, as well as local, State, and federal regulations, investigation, remediation, and disposal procedures with respect to pesticides would be followed. Previously unknown contaminants could be encountered at the commercial and residential properties to be acquired as part of the project due to poor housekeeping, improperly stored chemicals, or past spills. If not handled properly, these contaminants could affect construction workers and the surrounding environment. Consistent with Caltrans policies, as well as local, State, and federal regulations, investigation, remediation, and disposal procedures for previously unknown hazardous waste/materials would be followed. Typical hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., solvents, paints, and fuels) would be handled in accordance with standard procedures. There are Caltrans policies (avoidance and minimization measures) as well as local, State, and federal regulations that must be followed with respect to investigation, use, storage, handling, disposal, and transport of potentially hazardous materials during implementation of all Build Alternatives to protect human health and the environment. Although Alternative 4 would require partial parcel acquisitions that are in the vicinity of LUST sites, it is not anticipated that groundwater or soil impacts associated with these LUSTs would be encountered during construction. This is because (1) the potential soil impacts from these LUSTs appear to be contained on site, and are not anticipated to affect the proposed partial acquisitions area, and (2) groundwater would not be encountered during project construction because groundwater levels are expected to be below the maximum depth of excavation. 2.14.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not change the existing physical environment; therefore, no permanent impacts would occur. As with the build alternatives, routine maintenance activities would continue and would be required to follow applicable regulations with respect to handling and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, AND 4 Build Alternatives. Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives includes ramp improvements and reconfigurations to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and the construction of a new freeway interchange north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing. The Build Alternatives could result in hazardous materials spills as a result of Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-6 traffic accidents on the facility. In addition, vehicles traveling on the facility may transport hazardous substances that could spill and impact the roadway and adjacent properties. However, transport of hazardous materials is subject to strict regulations. In addition, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and local police and fire departments are trained in emergency response procedures for safely responding to accidental spills of hazardous substances on public roads, which further reduces impacts. In addition, the project would be designed to current safety standards, which would reduce the possibility of accidents compared to older roadways that are not designed to current standards. Therefore, impacts related to potential spills on the facility would not be adverse. The number of hazardous waste/materials sites in the vicinity of the Build Alternatives is similar for each alternative. Therefore, each of the Build Alternatives has a similar potential to be affected by existing hazardous waste/materials sites. However, property owners that use, store, and/or generate hazardous waste/materials are responsible for complying with local, State, and federal regulations with respect to these substances and are also responsible for any cleanup required after a release. A new transportation facility such as the project would not affect the operation of the hazardous waste/materials sites in the vicinity or increase the potential for a hazardous substance release at these sites. Therefore, potential impacts related to hazardous waste/materials sites in the vicinity of the Build Alternatives, once the project is constructed, would not be considered adverse. Routine maintenance activities during operation of the project would involve the use of hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, vehicle fuels, and pesticides. These activities would be required to follow manufacturers’ instructions and comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. These activities would be required to follow applicable regulations so that the handling of these materials during maintenance activities would not result in a release into the environment. Therefore, implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts related to hazardous waste or materials. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: VIII. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially hazardous materials, such as petroleum products, and other household products such as paint products, solvents, and cleaning products may be stored on site during the construction of the project. However, all activity involving hazardous substances is currently conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal safety standards. The project would be required to adhere to any applicable local, State, and Federal safety standards associated with the handling of these materials. In addition, the amount of such materials utilized at the project site during construction is anticipated to be used in small quantities on an as-needed basis. Routine maintenance activities during operation of the project would be required to follow applicable regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in adverse impacts related to hazardous waste or materials. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-7 VIII. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to CEQA Response a) above. VIII. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest existing or proposed school to the project site is Railroad Canyon Elementary School located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site. Since no existing schools or proposed schools are within 0.25 mile of the project site, no impacts associated with this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. VIII. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project would require partial parcel acquisitions that are in the vicinity of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, it is not anticipated that groundwater or soil impacts associated with these LUSTS would be encountered during construction. This is because: (1) the potential soil impacts from these LUSTS appear to be contained on-site, and are not anticipated to affect the proposed partial acquisition areas, and, (2) groundwater would not be encountered during project construction because groundwater levels are below the maximum depth of excavation. Adherence to Minimization Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-7, which are standard conditions present below in Section 2.14.4, would ensure that impacts associated with this issue remain less than significant. The project would involve disturbance of existing soils and structures; therefore, hazardous soil contaminants (lead-based paint [LBP] and aerially-deposited lead [ADL]) and structural materials (polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], LBP, and asbestos-containing materials [ACM]) may be encountered during project construction. Typical hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., solvents, paints, and fuels) would be handled in accordance with standard procedures. There are Caltrans policies (avoidance and minimization measures) as well as local, State, and federal regulations that must be followed with respect to investigation, use, storage, handling, disposal, and transport of potentially hazardous materials during implementation of the project to protect human health and the environment. Adherence to Minimization Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-7, which are standard conditions presented below in Section 2.14.4, would ensure that impacts associated with this issue remain less than significant. VIII. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. According to the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan, there are no public use airports in the City. The closest public use airport to the project site is the March Air Reserve Base, which is 14 miles northeast of the project site. Due to the distance of this airport from the project, implementation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. No mitigation is required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-8 VIII. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located north of Skylark Field, a private air facility utilized for skydiving (Skydive Elsinore). Skylark Airport is a privately owned airport that occupies approximately 150 acres of land located at the southern city limits on Corydon Road. The airport houses 21 single-engine aircraft, five multi-engine aircraft, and four gliders. The Skylark Airport is utilized for skydiving and other recreational air uses. There is no approved airport land use plan for this air facility. It is anticipated that no additional new safety hazards associated with Skylark Airport would be generated for people working in the project area as the airport is primarily used for skydiving and other recreational air activities. Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. VIII. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response times, may occur. However, these temporary impacts would be substantially minimized through the implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Construction activities associated with the project would result in temporary road detours and access restrictions during construction, which may result in some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response. However, significant disruptions to the local access network within the study area are not anticipated with implementation of a TMP. Adherence to Minimization Measure TR-1, a standard condition presented below in Section 2.14.4, would ensure impacts remain less than significant related to emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans. VIII. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. Portions of the project site are identified as being within a “very high” wildfire zone.1 However, the project site is currently developed with a series of existing highway facilities and access roads. The project site is currently sparsely vegetated and surrounded by developed commercial and residential uses. The project would not expose people or property to new increased wildland fire risks. However, construction activities may slightly increase fire risks. Adherence to Minimization Measure UES-4, a standard condition presented above in Section 2.6.3, would minimize the temporary potential impacts from construction activities that may result in a slight increase in fire risk and ensure impacts remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. 2.14.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following measures are required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential project impacts related to hazardous waste or materials: 1 Figure 3.1 City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility, City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, December 2011. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-9 Minimization Measures HAZ-1 Site Investigations. During final design, site investigations and soil testing will be conducted for hazardous materials sites identified in the Updated Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (November 22, 2016) that are within the right-of-way of Alternative 2 for implementation. HAZ-1A The Site Investigation Report will be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review and approval of areas within State right-of-way. If contaminants are determined to be present during the site investigations, the City Project Manager, in consultation with the Contract Qualified Engineer/ Geologist, may determine that one or more of the following specialized reports may be necessary: Remedial Actions Options Report, Soil Management Plan, Sensitive Receptor Survey, Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment, and/or Quarterly Monitoring Report. These reports will be submitted to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator, as well as to the applicable oversight agency for review and approval of areas within State right-of-way. HAZ-1B The City Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to prepare a work plan for approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and if groundwater has been impacted, to also coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, for all site investigations for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The City Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to conduct those site investigations consistent with the work plan approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and/or the RWQCB as appropriate. The City Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to coordinate all site investigations for any automotive or industrial uses to be coordinated with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Site investigations for any clandestine drug lab locations will be coordinated with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in the area of the suspected drug lab. Prior to completion of final design, the City Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to prepare a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Document that clears affected right-of-way for acquisition. The City Project Manager will submit the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Document to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review. HAZ-2 Traffic Stripe and Pavement Markings. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the City Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to test and remove any striping paint and pavement- marking material in accordance with the Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. During site preparation, disturbance, and construction, the City Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to remove striping and Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-10 pavement-marking material in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. HAZ-3 Hazardous Building Materials Surveys. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, and construction, the City Resident Engineer will require a certified consultant under contract to Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct predemolition hazardous materials surveys for all potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) surveys of any structures that will be renovated or demolished. Based on the results of the testing conducted by the certified consultant and prior to the demolition or renovation of any structures determined to contain hazardous materials that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste, the City Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly remove, store, transport and dispose of (at an appropriate Class I or II facility) any building materials that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste. HAZ-4 Site Work Plan and Procedures. Prior to soil excavations, a Site Investigation Work Plan will be prepared and submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. During final design, soil testing shall be conducted. During construction, soil excavations conducted on site shall be monitored by the construction contractor for visible soil staining, odor, and the possible presence of unknown hazardous material sources, such as buried 55-gallon drums and underground tanks. If hazardous materials contamination or sources are suspected or identified during project construction activities, an environmental professional shall evaluate the course of action required. This course of action shall follow the Unknown Hazards Procedures described in Chapter 7 of August 2006 Caltrans’ Construction Manual. HAZ-5 Reconnaissance Interviews. During the right-of-way appraisal and acquisition process, due to the presence of stored vehicles on residential sites required for parcel acquisitions, additional site reconnaissance and owner interviews should be performed to fill data gaps and identify any potential soil impacts that may require additional testing. HAZ-6 Soil Sampling for VOCs and PCBs. Prior to completion of right-of-way acquisition and during final design, the City Resident Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to the City to conduct soil sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PCBs, or heavy metals due to vehicle storage on parcels required for either full or partial acquisitions. Soils near the house foundation should also be analyzed for persistent organochlorine pesticides and lead. It is not feasible to conduct soil sampling and, if needed, remediation, and include the results of those activities in the Final Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) because the City does not currently own the properties that may require these investigations. Any such testing and remediation could result in ground disturbance or disturbance of existing structures, which are activities that need to be undertaken as part of the project implementation itself. In addition, new Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-11 contamination may occur if those investigations are conducted too far in advance of property acquisition. The analytical results of the soil sampling will determine the appropriate handling and disposal of the soil. HAZ-7 Utility Inspections. During final design, interviews with the owners of the parcels with cell towers required for acquisition should be conducted in order to determine chemical use and storage on site. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the City Resident Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to the City to conduct inspections of utility pole-mounted transformers that will be relocated or removed as part of the project. Any identified leaking transformers will be considered a PCB hazard unless tested and confirmed otherwise by the Contract Qualified Consultant. For any confirmed PCBs, the City Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to remove, handle, store, and dispose of them and any affected soils consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.14-12 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-1 2.15 Air Quality 2.15.1 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 quantity of pollutants that can be 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 (O3), particulate matter (PM), which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PM10) 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 a level that protects 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 within 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 type of 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 regional—or, planning and programming—level and the project level. The proposed 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 (O3), particulate matter (PM10 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 transportation projects planned Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-2 for a region over a period of at least 20 years for the RTP) and 4 years (for the FTIP). 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. 2.15.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Air Quality Report (April 2015) Air Quality Conformity Analysis (June 2017) 2.15.2.1 Climate The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes Orange County and the non-desert parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality regulation in the Basin is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Climate in the Basin is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern boundary, and high mountains surround the rest of the Basin. The region lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-3 The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site monitoring temperature is the Elsinore Station. The annual average maximum temperature recorded at this station is 80.5°F, and the annual average minimum is 47.7°F. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the Basin. The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin along the coastal side of the mountains. The climatological station closest to the site that monitors precipitation is the Elsinore Station. Average rainfall measured at this station varied from 2.47 inches in February to 0.41 inch or less between May and October, with an average annual total of 11.37 inches. Patterns in monthly and yearly rainfall totals are unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) as a result of the Pacific high. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observed from midafternoon to late afternoon on hot summer days, when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions frequently break by midmorning. Inversion layers are significant in determining ozone (O3) formation. O3 and its precursors will mix and react to produce higher concentrations under an inversion. The inversion will also simultaneously trap and hold directly emitted pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO). Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) is both directly emitted and indirectly created in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions. Concentration levels of these pollutants are directly related to inversion layers due to the limitation of mixing space. Surface or radiation inversions are formed when the ground surface becomes cooler than the air above it during the night. The earth’s surface goes through a radiative process on clear nights, when heat energy is transferred from the ground to a cooler night sky. As the earth’s surface cools during the evening hours, the air directly above it also cools, while air higher up remains relatively warm. The inversion is destroyed when heat from the sun warms the ground, which in turn heats the lower layers of air; this heating stimulates the ground level air to float up through the inversion layer. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest concentration of pollutants. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas in Los Angeles and Orange Counties are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are CO and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and NOX to form photochemical smog. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-4 2.15.2.2 Monitored Air Quality The SCAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations within the Basin. The Lake Elsinore Air Quality Monitoring Station, located approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site at 506 W. Flint Street, Lake Elsinore, California, monitors three of the five criteria pollutants: CO, O3, and NO2. The next closest monitoring station with particulate matter and SO2 data is the Rubidoux Station, which is located approximately 22 miles north of the project site at 5888 Mission Boulevard, Riverside, California. Air quality trends identified from data collected at both air quality monitoring stations between 2011 and 2013 are listed in Table 2.15.A, Ambient Air Quality Standards at the Lake Elsinore and Rubidoux Air Monitoring Stations, and discussed below. Figure 2.15.1 shows the locations of the Basin monitoring stations. From the ambient air quality data provided in Table 2.15.A, it can be seen that CO, SO2, and NO2 levels are below the relevant State and Federal standards at the Lake Elsinore and Rubidoux Stations. One-hour ozone levels exceeded the State standards in each of the past 3 years. Eight-hour ozone levels exceeded the federal standard in each of the past 3 years. The PM10 levels in the project area did not exceed State or Federal 24-hour concentration standards in the past 3 years; however the annual average concentration of PM10 exceeded the State standard in each of the past 3 years. The PM2.5 levels in the project area exceeded the Federal 24-hour concentration standard in each of the past 3 years, as well as the State and Federal annual average concentration standards for each of the past 3 years. As part of the Clean Air Rules of 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on July 1, 2004, to amend the Transportation Conformity Rule to include criteria and procedures for the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS. The final rule addressed a March 2, 1999, court decision by incorporating the EPA and USDOT guidance. On July 20, 2004, the EPA published a technical correction notice to correct two minor errors in the July 1, 2004, notice. To remain consistent with the stricter federal standards, the ARB approved a new 8-hour O3 standard (0.07 parts per million [ppm], not to be exceeded) for O3 on April 28, 2005. Additionally, the ARB retained the current 1-hour- average standard for O3 (0.09 ppm) and the current monitoring method for O3, which uses the ultraviolet photometry method. In April 2003, the EPA was cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement the 8-hour ground-level O3 standard. The ARB provided the EPA with California’s recommendations for 8-hour O3 area designations on July 15, 2003. The recommendations and supporting data were an update to a report submitted to the EPA in July 2000. On December 3, 2003, the EPA published its proposed designations. The EPA’s proposal differs from the State’s recommendations primarily on the appropriate boundaries for several nonattainment areas. The ARB responded to the EPA’s proposal on February 4, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the EPA announced the new nonattainment areas for the 8-hour O3 standard. The designations and classifications became effective on June 15, 2004. The transportation conformity requirement became effective on June 15, 2005. The EPA proposed a PM2.5 implementation rule in September 2003 and made final designations in December 2004. The PM2.5 standard complements existing national and State ambient air quality standards that target the full range of inhalable PM10. Locations of Air Quality Monitoring Stations in the South Coast Air BasinSOURCE: Bing A erial, 2015; Air Q uality D istrict I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-15-1_AQ_MonitorSta.mxd (12/21/2015) FIGURE 2.15.1 0 1.5 3 Miles S!!N 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Project Study Area #*Lake Elsinore Air Quality Monitoring Station #*Rubidoux Air Quality Monitoring Station Chapter 1 Proposed Project I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-6 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-7 Table 2.15.A: Ambient Air Quality Standards at the Lake Elsinore and Rubidoux Air Monitoring Stations Pollutant Standard 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Carbon Monoxide1 Max 1 hr concentration (ppm) 2.7 2.7 3.3 1.9 0.7 No. days exceeded: State Federal > 20 ppm/1 hr > 35 ppm/1 hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 8 hr concentration (ppm) 0.67 0.52 0.8 1.4 0.4 No. days exceeded: State Federal 9 ppm/8 hr 9 ppm/8 hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone1 Max 1 hr concentration (ppm) 0.133 0.111 0.102 .1404 0.131 No. days exceeded: State > 0.09 ppm/1 hr 19 10 6 4 13 Ozone1 Max 8 hr concentration (ppm) 0.106 0.089 0.102 0.086 0.098 No. days exceeded: State >0.07ppm/8 hr 45 32 25 13 24 No. days exceeded: Federal > 0.075 ppm/8 hr 28 17 12 8 11 Particulates (PM10)2 Max 24 hr concentration (ppm) 82.7 67.0 135.0 86 61 No. days exceeded: State Federal > 50 µg/m3 > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 95 0 Annual average concentration (µg/m3) 32.5 33.4 34.6 26 36.3 Exceeds Standard? State >20 µg/m3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Particulates (PM2.5)2 Max 24 hr concentration (ppm) 60.8 38.1 60.3 48.9 54.7 No. days exceeded: Federal2 > 35 µg/m3 4 7 6 4 5 Annual average concentration (µg/m3) 13.5 13.5 12.4 12.5 10.4 Exceeds Standard? State Federal > 12 µg/m3 > 12 µg/m3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Nitrogen Dioxide Max 1 hr concentration (ppm): State > 0.18 ppm/1 hr 0.0503 0.0483 0.0465 0.0453 0.046 No. days exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 Annual avg concentration: Federal 0.053 ppm annual avg 0.009 0.010 N/A 0.015 0.009 No. days exceeded 0 0 N/A 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide2 Max 24 hr concentration (ppm) 0.001 0.001 N/A 0.001 0.0008 No. days exceeded: State Federal 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual avg concentration: Federal 0.030 ppm annual avg 0.000 N/A N/A 0.026 0.026 No. days exceeded No N/A N/A 0 0 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (2011 to 2013). 1 Air monitoring data obtained from the Lake Elsinore Station. 2 Air monitoring data obtained from the Rubidoux Station. ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter max = maximum avg = average N/A = not applicable ARB = California Air Resources Board PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size hr = hour ppm = parts per million Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-8 Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and maintained by the local air districts and State air quality regulating agencies. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to identify regions as “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “maintenance,” depending on whether the regions meet the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. In addition, different classifications of nonattainment, such as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme, are used to classify each air basin in the State on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The classifications are used as a foundation to create air quality management strategies to improve air quality and comply with the NAAQS. Table 2.15.B lists the attainment status for each of the criteria pollutants in the Basin. 2.15.3 Regional Air Quality Conformity Regional conformity is concerned with how a region is achieving and maintaining compliance with air quality standards. At the regional level, plans such as the RTP, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) are developed to address all the planned transportation projects for a period of 20 years. These plans are periodically updated and require FHWA approval subsequent to each update. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning organization with responsibility to produce and update the RTP, RTIP, and FTIP for the Southern California region. As part of the RTP, RTIP, and FTIP preparation, SCAG evaluates and analyzes the planned transportation projects with respect to impacts and current and future air quality. Subsequent to these analyses, SCAG makes a determination of conformity for all planned projects. If the project, with respect to design and scope, is essentially the same as that listed in the RTP, RTIP and FTIP, then the project is deemed to be in conformity at the regional level. The project was determined to be in regional conformity. The project is listed in the 2016 financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Amendment No. 1, which was found to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the SCAG on April 12, 2017, and FHWA and FTA made a regional conformity determination finding on May 12, 2017. The project is also included in the SCAG financially constrained 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program in Amendment 17-03, page 4, for which FHWA and FTA also made a regional conformity determination finding on May 12, 2017. The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the 2016 RTP/SCS, 2017 FTIP, and the “open to traffic” assumptions of the SCAG’s regional emissions analysis. 2.15.3.1 Project Level Conformity The EPA has established NAAQS for NO2, CO, O3, SO2, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and airborne lead to protect public health and welfare. In general, if these standards are exceeded in a defined geographic area at a rate of four or more occurrences in any consecutive 3-year period, the area is considered a “nonattainment area” subject to regulatory control requirements that are more stringent than attainment area requirements. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-9Table 2.15.B State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard1 Federal Standard2 Principal Health and Atmospheric Effects Typical Sources Attainment Status Ozone (O3)2 1 hour 8 hours 0.09 ppm3 0.070 ppm --- 4 0.070 ppm (4th highest in 3 years) High concentrations irritate lungs. Long-term exposure may cause lung tissue damage and cancer. Long-term exposure damages plant materials and reduces crop productivity. Precursor organic compounds include many known toxic air contaminants. Biogenic VOC may also contribute. Low-altitude ozone is almost entirely formed from reactive organic gases/volatile organic compounds (ROG or VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight and heat. Common precursor emitters include motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines, solvent evaporation, boilers, furnaces, and industrial processes. Federal: Extreme Nonattainment (8-hour) State: Nonattainment (1-hour and 8-hour) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 8 hours 8 hours (Lake Tahoe) 20 ppm 9.0 ppm1 6 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm --- CO interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. CO also is a minor precursor for photochemical ozone. Colorless, odorless. Combustion sources, especially gasoline-powered engines and motor vehicles. CO is the traditional signature pollutant for on-road mobile sources at the local and neighborhood scale. Federal: Attainment - Unclassified State: Attainment Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)5 24 hours Annual 50 µg/m3 6 20 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 (expected number of days above standard < or equal to 1) ---5 Irritates eyes and respiratory tract. Decreases lung capacity. Associated with increased cancer and mortality. Contributes to haze and reduced visibility. Includes some toxic air contaminants. Many toxic & other aerosol and solid compounds are part of PM10. Dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations; combustion smoke and vehicle exhaust; atmospheric chemical reactions; construction and other dust-producing activities; unpaved road dust and re-entrained paved road dust; natural sources. Federal: Attainment/Maintenance State: Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)5 24 hours Annual 24 hours (conformity process7) Secondary Standard (annual; also for conformity process5) --- 12 µg/m3 --- --- 35 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 (98th percentile over 3 years) Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Reduces visibility and produces surface soiling. Most diesel exhaust particulate matter – a toxic air contaminant – is in the PM2.5 size range. Many toxic & other aerosol and solid compounds are part of PM2.5. Combustion including motor vehicles, other mobile sources, and industrial activities; residential and agricultural burning; also formed through atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions involving other pollutants including NOX, sulfur oxides (SOX), ammonia, and ROG. Federal: Nonattainment State: Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour Annual 0.18 ppm 0.030 ppm 0.100 ppm8 0.053 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish-brown. Contributes to acid rain & nitrate contamination of stormwater. Part of the “NOX” group of ozone precursors. Motor vehicles and other mobile or portable engines; especially diesel; refineries; industrial operations. Federal: Attainment - Unclassified State: Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 hour 3 hours 24 hours Annual 0.25 ppm --- 0.04 ppm --- 0.075 ppm9 (99th percentile over 3 years) 0.5 ppm10 0.14 ppm (for certain areas) 0.030 ppm (for certain areas) Irritates respiratory tract; injures lung tissue. Can yellow plant leaves. Destructive to marble, iron, steel. Contributes to acid rain. Limits visibility. Fuel combustion (especially coal and high-sulfur oil), chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, metal processing; some natural sources like active volcanoes. Limited contribution possible from heavy-duty diesel vehicles if ultra-low sulfur fuel not used. Federal: Attainment State: Attainment Lead (Pb)11 Monthly Calendar Quarter Rolling 3-month average 1.5 µg/m3 --- --- --- 1.5 µg/m3 (for certain areas) 0.15 µg/m3 12 Disturbs gastrointestinal system. Causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Also a toxic air contaminant and water pollutant. Lead-based industrial processes like battery production and smelters. Lead paint, leaded gasoline. Aerially deposited lead from older gasoline may exist in soils along major roads. Federal: Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only) State: Attainment Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-10 Table 2.15.B State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard1 Federal Standard2 Principal Health and Atmospheric Effects Typical Sources Attainment Status Sulfate 24 hours 25 µg/m3 --- Premature mortality and respiratory effects. Contributes to acid rain. Some toxic air contaminants attach to sulfate aerosol particles. Industrial processes, refineries and oil fields, mines, natural sources like volcanic areas, salt-covered dry lakes, and large sulfide rock areas. Federal: N/A State: Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 hour 0.03 ppm --- Colorless, flammable, poisonous. Respiratory irritant. Neurological damage and premature death. Headache, nausea. Strong odor. Industrial processes such as refineries and oil fields, asphalt plants, livestock operations, sewage treatment plants, and mines. Some natural sources like volcanic areas and hot springs. Federal: N/A State: Attainment/Unclassified Visibility Reducing Particles (VRP) 8 hours Visibility of 10 miles or more (Tahoe: 30 miles) at relative humidity less than 70 percent --- Reduces visibility. Produces haze. NOTE: Not related to the Regional Haze program under the Federal Clean Air Act, which is oriented primarily toward visibility issues in National Parks and other “Class I” areas. See particulate matter above. May be related more to aerosols than to solid particles. Federal: N/A State: Attainment/Unclassified Source: Adapted from Sonoma-Marin Narrows Draft EIR and California ARB Air Quality Standards chart (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf). Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Greenhouse gases do not have concentration standards for that purpose. Conformity requirements do not apply to greenhouse gases. 1 State standards are “not to exceed” or “not to be equaled or exceeded” unless stated otherwise. 2 Federal standards are “not to exceed more than once a year” or as described above. 3 ppm = parts per million 4 Prior to June 2005, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was 0.12 ppm. Emission budgets for 1-hour ozone are still in use in some areas where 8-hour ozone emission budgets have not been developed, such as the San Francisco Bay Area. 5 Annual PM10 NAAQS revoked October 2006; was 50 μg/m3. 24-hr. PM2.5 NAAQS tightened October 2006; was 65 μg/m3. Annual PM2.5 NAAQS tightened from 15 μg/m3 to 12 μg/m3 December 2012 and secondary annual standard set at 15 μg/m3. 6 μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 7 The 65 μg/m3 PM2.5 (24-hr) NAAQS was not revoked when the 35 μg/m3 NAAQS was promulgated in 2006. The 15 μg/m3 annual PM2.5 standard was not revoked when the 12 μg/m3 standard was promulgated in 2012. The 0.08 ppm 1997 ozone standard is revoked FOR CONFORMITY PURPOSES ONLY when area designations for the 2008 0.75 ppm standard become effective for conformity use (July 20, 2013). Conformity requirements apply for all NAAQS, including revoked NAAQS, until emission budgets for newer NAAQS are found adequate, SIP amendments for the newer NAAQS are approved with a emission budget, EPA specifically revokes conformity requirements for an older standard, or the area becomes attainment/unclassified. SIP-approved emission budgets remain in force indefinitely unless explicitly replaced or eliminated by a subsequent approved SIP amendment. During the “Interim” period prior to availability of emission budgets, conformity tests may include some combination of build vs. no build, build vs. baseline, or compliance with prior emission budgets for the same pollutant. 8 Final 1-hour NO2 NAAQS published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2010, effective March 9, 2010. Initial area designation for California (2012) was attainment/unclassifiable throughout. Project-level hot spot analysis requirements do not currently exist. Near-road monitoring starting in 2013 may cause re-designation to nonattainment in some areas after 2016. 9 EPA finalized a 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 ppb (parts per billion [thousand million]) in June 2010. Nonattainment areas have not yet been designated as of September 2012. 10 Secondary standard, set to protect public welfare rather than health. Conformity and environmental analysis address both primary and secondary NAAQS. 11 The ARB has identified vinyl chloride and the particulate matter fraction of diesel exhaust as toxic air contaminants. Diesel exhaust particulate matter is part of PM10 and, in larger proportion, PM2.5. Both the ARB and U.S. EPA have identified lead and various organic compounds that are precursors to ozone and PM2.5 as toxic air contaminants. There are no exposure criteria for adverse health effects due to toxic air contaminants, and control requirements may apply at ambient concentrations below any criteria levels specified above for these pollutants or the general categories of pollutants to which they belong. 12 Lead NAAQS are not considered in Transportation Conformity analysis. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ARB = California Air Resources Board EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency N/A = Not Available NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards ppb = parts per billion ppm = parts per million SIP = State Implementation Plan Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-11 Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has adopted standards for CO, NO2, SO2, O3, sulfates, PM10, PM2.5, and airborne lead at similar levels for the protection of public health and welfare (ARB 2006). ARB has primary jurisdiction in the area of mobile-source regulations, while local air districts such as the SCAQMD have primary responsibility for regulations and enforcement with respect to stationary sources. ARB also monitors local district programs for consistency and compliance with State regulations. California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and the NAAQS are composed of two parts: a specific pollutant concentration and an averaging time over which the concentration is to be measured. Allowable concentrations are based on the results of studies of the effects of the pollutants on public health and welfare. The averaging times are based on whether the effects caused by a specific pollutant will occur over a short-term period (from 1 hour up to 1 day) or a long-term period (from 3 months up to 1 year). Several pollutants have more than one air quality standard and averaging time due to health and/or welfare effects that may occur over both the short and long term. Previously referenced Table 2.15.A identifies the CAAQS and NAAQS for various pollutants. Some of the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS with respect to pollutant concentrations and averaging times. Typically, for transportation projects involving construction phases, the pollutants of most importance are CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5. Table 2.15.B lists the Basin attainment status for each of the criteria pollutants for the CAAQS and NAAQS. Historical air quality data show that existing CO levels for the project area and the general vicinity do not exceed either the State or federal ambient air quality standards. The project would help to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on roadway links in the project vicinity. The project is located in an attainment/ maintenance area for federal CO standards. Using the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol), a screening and a CO hot-spot analysis were conducted to determine whether the project would result in any CO hot spots. It was determined that the project would not result in any exceedances of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. The project is within a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 and within an attainment/ maintenance area for federal PM10 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns and 10 microns, respectively, in size) standards. Therefore, per 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 93, analyses are required for conformity purposes. However, the EPA does not require hot-spot analyses, qualitative or quantitative, for projects that are not listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) as an air quality concern. A PM2.5/PM10 hot-spot analysis was submitted to the Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for its review. On February 24, 2015, the TCWG determined that the project is not a project of air quality concern. An Air Quality Conformity Analysis was prepared and submitted to FHWA on June 28, 2017, requesting a project level conformity determination. FHWA issued the project level air quality conformity determination letter for this project on July 24, 2017. The request letter to FHWA in this regard, as well as FHWA's determination letter is included in Appendix L of this Final Environmental Document. 2.15.3.2 Temporary Impacts Construction Conformity Construction activities will not last for more than 5 years at one general location, so construction-related emissions do not need to be included in regional and project-level conformity analysis (40 CFR 93.123(c)(5)). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-12 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction of any of the proposed improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, and therefore, would not result in temporary impacts to air quality. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities related to construction. Emissions from construction equipment also are anticipated and would include CO, NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Site preparation and roadway construction would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, and paving roadway surfaces. Construction-related effects on air quality from most roadway 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 the site. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, CO, SO2, NOX, and VOCs. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after drying. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, the silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating at the time. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust, the emissions can be reduced by up to 50 percent. The Department’s Standard Specifications (Section 14) on dust minimization require use of water or dust palliative compounds and will reduce potential fugitive dust emissions during construction. In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOX, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site. SO2 is generated by oxidation during combustion of organic sulfur compounds contained in diesel fuel. Off-road diesel fuel meeting federal standards can contain up to 5,000 ppm of sulfur, whereas on-road diesel is restricted to less than 15 ppm of sulfur. However, under California law and ARB regulations, off-road diesel fuel used in California must meet the same sulfur and additional standards as on-road diesel fuel. Accordingly, SO2-related issues due to diesel exhaust would be minimal. The maximum amount of construction-related emissions during a peak construction day is presented in Table 2.15.C (model data are provided in Appendix D of the Air Quality Report [2015]). The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions assume a 50 percent control of fugitive dust as a result of watering and associated dust-control measures. The emissions presented below are based Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-13 on the best information available at the time of calculations. Phase 1 of the project is anticipated to take approximately 18 months for Alternatives 2 and 3 and 12 months for Alternative 4 beginning in 2018. Phase 2 of the project is anticipated to take approximately 18 months beginning in 2032 for Alternatives 2 and 3 and 2025 for Alternative 4. Caltrans Standard Specifications for construction (Section 14-9.03 [Dust Control] and Section 14-9.02 [Air Pollution Control]) will be adhered to in order to reduce emissions generated by construction equipment. Additionally, the SCAQMD has established Rule 403 for reducing fugitive dust emissions. The best available control measures (BACM), as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403, shall be incorporated into the project commitments. With the implementation of standard construction measures (providing 50 percent effectiveness) such as frequent watering (e.g., minimum twice per day) and Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities would not result in any adverse air quality impacts. Table 2.15.C Maximum Project Construction Emissions Project Phases ROG CO NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Alternatives 2 and 3 Phase 1 Grubbing/Land Clearing (lbs/day) 1.9 12.1 15.9 50.7 11.1 Grading/Excavation (lbs/day) 7.5 46.3 76.5 53.6 13.7 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade (lbs/day) 6.0 37.3 55.5 52.8 13.0 Paving (lbs/day) 2.5 17.6 20.2 1.2 1.1 Maximum (lbs/day) 7.5 46.3 76.5 53.6 13.7 Total (tons/construction project) 1.1 7.1 11.0 9.0 2.2 Alternative 4 Phase 1 Grubbing/Land Clearing (lbs/day) 1.9 12.1 15.9 50.7 11.1 Grading/Excavation (lbs/day) 7.5 46.3 76.5 53.6 13.7 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade (lbs/day) 6.4 37.5 58.5 53.1 13.2 Paving (lbs/day) 2.8 17.8 22.5 1.4 1.3 Maximum (lbs/day) 7.5 46.3 76.5 53.6 13.7 Total (tons/construction project) 0.8 4.7 7.5 6.0 1.5 Alternatives 2 and 3 Phase 2 Grubbing/Land Clearing (lbs/day) 2.8 25.7 23.6 51.1 11.4 Grading/Excavation (lbs/day) 5.9 58.8 47.1 52.2 12.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade (lbs/day) 4.1 41.8 34.4 51.6 11.8 Paving (lbs/day) 3.0 31.4 26.7 1.2 1.1 Maximum (lbs/day) 5.9 58.8 47.1 52.2 12.3 Total (tons/construction project) 0.9 9.2 7.5 8.8 2.1 Alternative 4 Phase 2 Grubbing/Land Clearing (lbs/day) 2.8 25.7 23.6 51.1 11.4 Grading/Excavation (lbs/day) 5.9 58.8 47.1 52.2 12.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade (lbs/day)4.1 41.8 34.4 51.6 11.8 Paving (lbs/day) 3.0 31.4 26.7 1.2 1.1 Maximum (lbs/day) 5.9 58.8 47.1 52.2 12.3 Total (tons/construction project) 0.9 9.2 7.5 8.8 2.1 Source: Air Quality Report (April 2015). CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size ROG = reactive organic gases Naturally Occurring Asbestos The project is located in Riverside County, which is not among the counties listed as containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. There are no impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-14 ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Similar to Alternative 2, construction activities associated with Alternative 3 would produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust and fugitive dust emissions generated during project construction will vary daily as construction activity levels change. Caltrans Standard Specifications for construction (Sections 10 and 18 for dust control and Section 39-3.06 for asphalt concrete plants) will be adhered to in order to reduce emissions generated by construction equipment. With the implementation of standard construction measures (providing 50 percent effectiveness) such as frequent watering (e.g., minimum twice per day) and Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities would not result in any adverse air quality impacts with implementation of Build Alternative 3. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The project is located in Riverside County, which is not among the counties listed as containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. There are no impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Similar to Alternative 2, construction activities associated with Alternative 4 would produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy- duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust and fugitive dust emissions generated during project construction will vary daily as construction activity levels change. Caltrans Standard Specifications for construction (Sections 10 and 18 for dust control and Section 39-3.06 for asphalt concrete plants) will be adhered to in order to reduce emissions generated by construction equipment. With the implementation of standard construction measures (providing 50 percent effectiveness) such as frequent watering (e.g., minimum twice per day) and Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities would not result in any adverse air quality impacts with implementation of Build Alternative 4. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The project is located in Riverside County, which is not among the counties listed as containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. There are no impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos. 2.15.3.3 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in any improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange or the construction of the I-15/Franklin Street interchange and, therefore, would not result in permanent impacts to air quality. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-15 ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Carbon Monoxide (CO) Prior to conducting CO impact analysis, investigation on the need for CO impact analysis was performed pursuant to the CO Protocol. As stated in the CO Protocol, the determination of project requirements should be carried out according to Section 3 of the CO Protocol and as delineated in the Requirements of New Projects flowchart identified in Figure 1 of the CO Protocol. The following provides a discussion of each step for a project requirement analysis identified in Figure 1 of the CO Protocol. 3.1.1. Is this project exempt from all emissions analyses? NO. Table 1 of the CO Protocol is Table 2 of Section 93.126 of 40 CFR. Section 3.1.1 is inquiring whether the project is exempt. Such projects appear in Table 1 of the CO Protocol. The Build Alternative project types do not appear in Table 1. Therefore, they are not exempt from all emissions analyses. 3.1.2. Is the project exempt from regional emissions analyses? NO. Table 2 of the CO Protocol is Table 3 of Section 93.127. The question is attempting to determine whether the project is listed in Table 2. Although the project is an interchange reconfiguration project, it includes additional through lanes on Railroad Canyon Road and a new interchange at Franklin Street. Therefore, it is not exempt from regional emissions analysis. 3.1.3. Is the project locally defined as regionally significant? YES. As noted above, the project includes additional through lanes on Railroad Canyon Road and a new interchange at Franklin Street. Therefore, the project is potentially regionally significant. 3.1.4. Is the project in a federal attainment area? YES. The project is located within an attainment/unclassified area for the Federal CO standard. 3.1.5. Are there a currently conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? YES. The 2016 RTP/SCS and the 2017 FTIP. 3.1.6. Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming RTP and TIP? YES. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-16 The project is included in the SCAG 2016 RTP (Amendment No. 1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS was subsequently adopted by SCAG on April 6, 2017, and Amendment No. 2 to the RTP/SCS was adopted by SCAG on July 6, 2017) and the 2017 FTIP Amendment No. 17-03 adopted on April 6, 2017 (Project ID: RIV010206; Description: at I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and NW I-15/Franklin Street interchange; widen Railroad Canyon Road undercrossing from 7 to 8 lanes (Summerhill Drive to Mission Trail), reconstruct the northbound exit/entry ramps to a hook ramp connection to Grape Street, widen the southbound entry ramp from one to two lanes, widen the shoulders at the southbound exit ramp, widen Grape Street to construct a dedicated right turn lane at the northbound hook ramp and Railroad Canyon Road , and construct ramp acceleration/deceleration lanes at Railroad Canyon Road (Phase 1); construct a new I- 15/Franklin Street interchange, construct auxiliary lanes from the Franklin Street interchange to the Main Street interchange and from the Franklin Street interchange to the Railroad Canyon Road interchange, realign and reconstruct the Main Street southbound on ramp from one to two lanes, on the west side of I-15 construct an Auto Center Drive extension from existing Franklin Street to Adobe Street and on the east side of I-15 construct the Canyon Estates Drive extension from existing Franklin Street to Camino Del Norte (Phase 2). 3.1.7. Has the project design concept and/or scope changed significantly from that in the regional analysis? NO. The Build Alternatives are consistent with the project description in the 2016 RTP and 2017 FTIP. 3.1.9. Examine local impacts. Section 3.1.9 of the flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 4 (Local Analysis) of the CO Protocol. This concludes Figure 1. Section 4 contains Figure 3 from the Local CO Analysis (Appendix A of this report). This flowchart is used to determine the type of CO analysis required for the Build Alternatives. Below is a step-by-step explanation of the flowchart. Each level cited is followed by a response, which in turn, determines the next applicable level of the flowchart for the Build Alternatives. The flowchart begins at Level 1: Level 1. Is the project in a CO non-attainment area? NO. The project site is located in an area that has demonstrated attainment with the Federal CO standard. Level 1 (cont.). Was the area redesignated as “attainment” after the 1990 Clean Air Act? YES. Level 1 (cont.). Has “continued attainment” been verified with the local Air District, if appropriate? YES. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-17 The Basin was designated as attainment/maintenance by the EPA on June 11, 2007. (Proceed to Level 7.) Level 7. Does the project worsen air quality? YES. As the project would increase traffic volumes by 5 percent or more on Grape Street under Alternatives 2 and 3 and Casino Drive under Alternative 3, it would potentially worsen air quality. a. The project significantly increases the percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode. Increasing the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode by as little as 2% should be considered potentially significant. The percentage of vehicles operating in cold-start mode is the same or lower for the intersections under study compared to those used for the intersection in the attainment plan. It is assumed that all vehicles in the intersection are in fully warmed-up mode. Therefore, this criterion is not met. b. The project significantly increases traffic volumes. Increases in traffic volumes in excess of 5% should be considered potentially significant. Increasing the traffic volume by less than 5% may still be potentially significant if there is also a reduction in average speeds. Based on the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, the project would increase traffic volume by 5 percent or more along Grape Street under Alternatives 2 and 3 and Casino Drive under Alternative 3. The 2019 and 2040 traffic volumes with and without the Build Alternatives are shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, respectively. Therefore, the project would potentially worsen air quality. Table 2.15.D provides the 2019 traffic volumes with and without the Build Alternatives, and Table 2.15.E provides the 2040 traffic volumes with and without the Build Alternatives. Therefore, this criterion is met. Table 2.15.D: 2019 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Total AADT/Truck AADT) Roadway Alternative 1 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Alternative 2 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Alternative 3 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Alternative 4 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Railroad Canyon Road 36,680/2,934 27,980/2,238 28,010/2,241 36,670/2,934 Franklin Street 7,590/607 7,590/607 7,590/607 7,590/607 Main Street 10,010/801 10,010/801 8,660/693 8,660/693 Grape Street 15,060/1,205 27,690/2,215 27,690/2,215 8,880/710 Casino Drive 6,970/558 6,970/558 23,520/1,882 6,940/555 Auto Center Drive 6,640/531 6,640/531 6,700/536 6,610/529 Mission Trail 14,700/1,176 14,700/1,176 11,470/918 14,700/1,176 Lakeshore 12,830/1,026 12,830/1,026 12,830/1,026 12,820/1,026 Camino Del Norte 3,590/287 3,590/287 2,720/218 2,720/218 Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). AADT = annual average daily traffic Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-18 Table 2.15.E: 2040 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Total AADT/Truck AADT) Roadway Alternative 1 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Alternative 2 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Alternative 3 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Alternative 4 Total AADT/ Truck AADT Railroad Canyon Road 52,050/4,164 29,780/2,382 29,780/2,382 38,620/3,090 Franklin Street 10,080/806 11,380/910 11,380/910 11,380/910 Main Street 21,870/1,750 21,870/1,750 21,870/1,750 21,870/1,750 Grape Street 21,370/1,710 32,800/2,624 32,800/2,624 19,940/1,595 Casino Drive 9,890/791 8,740/699 24,310/1,945 8,740/699 Auto Center Drive 9,410/753 8,130/650 9,000/720 8,130/650 Mission Trail 20,860/1,669 19,060/1,525 17,020/1,362 19,060/1,525 Lakeshore 18,200/1,456 18,200/1,456 18,200/1,456 18,200/1,456 Camino Del Norte 15,980/1,278 15,980/1,278 15,980/1,278 15,980/1,278 Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange (November 2014). AADT = annual average daily traffic c. The project worsens traffic flow. For uninterrupted roadway segments, a reduction in average speeds (within a range of 3 to 50 mph) should be regarded as worsening traffic flow. For intersection segments, a reduction in average speed or an increase in average delay should be considered as worsening traffic flow. As identified in Tables 2.15.F through 2.15.I, the Build Alternatives would improve the level of service (LOS) at the local intersections. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Table 2.15.F: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, No Build Alternative Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive 16.5 B 119.7 F Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps 6.2 A 11.1 B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps 10.6 B 16.4 C Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte 67.4 E 88.0 F Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive 60.1 E 104.6 F Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive 337.5 F 368.0 F Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps 325.4 F 431.6 F Grape Street/I-15 NB Ramps 225.8 F 209.7 F Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive 733.5 F 3,845.0 F Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps 6,759.0 F 5,837.0 F Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps 2,015.0 F 1,566.0 F Main Street/Camino Del Norte 16.5 B 119.7 F Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, (November 2014). Delay = Average control delay in seconds I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-19 Table 2.15.G: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, Alternative 2 Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Avenue 6-Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive 28.1 C 25.1 C Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps 10.1 B 14.1 B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps 11.3 B 9.4 A Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte 4.9 A 7.3 A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive 34.8 C 20.6 C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive 19.2 B 18.5 B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps 11.3 B 15.4 B Grape Street/I-15 NB Ramps 38.5 D 37.1 D Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive 34.6 C 67.2 E Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps 14.8 B 37.0 D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps 20.6 C 11.2 B Main Street/Camino Del Norte 12.2 B 20.8 C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, (November 2014). Delay = Average control delay in seconds I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service NB = northbound SB = southbound Table 2.15.H: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, Alternative 3 Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Franklin Street-Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive 28.1 C 25.1 C Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps 10.1 B 14.1 B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps 11.3 B 9.4 A Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte-Canyon Estates Drive 4.9 A 7.3 A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive 15.0 B 26.7 C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive 15.4 B 17.1 B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps 9.5 A 25.6 C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps 15.7 B 18.3 B Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive 35.0 C 60.4 E Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps 14.8 B 37.0 D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps 20.6 C 11.2 B Main Street/Camino Del Norte 12.2 B 20.8 C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, (November 2014). Delay = Average control delay in seconds I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service NB = northbound SB = southbound Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-20 Table 2.15.I: 2040 Intersection Levels of Service, Alternative 4 Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Franklin Street-Avenue 6/Auto Center Drive 28.1 C 25.1 C Franklin Street/I-15 SB Ramps 10.1 B 14.1 B Franklin Street/I-15 NB Ramps 11.3 B 9.4 A Franklin Street/Camino Del Norte 4.9 A 7.3 A Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive 11.2 B 22.1 C Diamond Drive-Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Road-Auto Center Drive 7.9 A 12.8 B Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 SB Ramps 10.7 B 27.6 C Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 NB Ramps 8.6 A 8.4 A Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street-Summerhill Drive 12.7 B 23.8 C Main Street/I-15 SB Ramps 14.8 B 37.0 D Main Street/I-15 NB Ramps 20.6 C 11.2 B Main Street/Camino Del Norte 12.2 B 20.8 C Source: Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis-Interstate Route 15 (I-15) at Railroad Canyon Interchange, (November 2014). Delay = Average control delay in seconds I-15 = Interstate 15 LOS = level of service NB = northbound SB = southbound Level 7 (cont.). Is the project suspected of resulting in higher CO concentrations than those existing within the region at the time of attainment demonstration? NO. Four intersections were evaluated in the 1997 CO Attainment Demonstration: Wilshire Boulevard at Veteran Avenue, Sunset Boulevard at Highland Avenue, La Cienega Boulevard at Century Boulevard, and Long Beach Boulevard at Imperial Highway. The CO concentrations at the intersections under study will be lower than those reported for the maximum of the intersections analyzed in the CO attainment plan because all of the following conditions, listed in Section 4.7.2 of the CO Protocol, are satisfied: The receptor locations at the intersections under study are at the same distance or farther from the traveled roadway than the receptor locations used in the intersections in the attainment plan. The attainment plan evaluates the CO concentrations at a distance of 10 ft from the edge of the roadways. The CO Protocol does not permit the modeling of receptor locations closer than this distance. The project intersection traffic volumes and geometries are not substantially different from those included in the attainment plan. Also, the intersections under study have less total traffic and the same number of lanes or fewer than the intersections in the attainment plan. The assumed meteorology for the intersections under study is the same as the assumed meteorology for the intersections in the attainment plan. Both use the worst-case scenario meteorology settings in the CALINE4 and/or CAL3QHC models. As identified in Table 2.15.J, the intersection total and turn lane volumes are lower for the intersections under study than those assumed for the intersection in the attainment plan. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-21 Table 2.15.J Total Intersection Traffic Volume Comparisons Attainment Plan Maximum Volumes Intersection 1: Wilshire Boulevard/ Veteran Avenue Intersection 2: Sunset Boulevard/ Highland Avenue Intersection 3: La Cienega Boulevard/ Century Boulevard Intersection 4: Long Beach Boulevard/ Imperial Highway AM PM AM PM AMPMAM PM 8,062 7,719 6,614 7,374 6,635 8,674 4,212 5,514 Condition Intersection 1: Lakeshore Drive- Mission Trail/ Diamond Drive Intersection 2: Auto Center Drive- Casino Drive/ Diamond Drive Intersection 3: Summerhill Drive-Grape Street / Railroad Canyon Road AM PM AMPMAM PM 2019 Alternative 1 (No Build) 1,649 2,337 1,875 2,331 2,689 4,687 2019 Alternative 2 1,649 2,337 1,875 2,331 4,143 4,833 2019 Alternative 3 1,363 2,014 2,749 3,475 4,033 4,836 2019 Alternative 4 1,649 2,337 1,875 2,328 2,689 4,686 2040 Alternative 1 (No Build) 2,342 3,315 2,661 3,307 5,630 6,652 2040 Alternative 2 2,263 3,135 2,166 2,761 4,952 5,749 2040 Alternative 3 1,891 2,931 3,075 2,991 4,952 5,749 2040 Alternative 4 2,263 3,135 2,166 2,761 4,810 5,547 Source: Air Quality Report (April 2015). The percentages of vehicles operating in cold-start mode are the same or lower for the intersections under study compared to those used for the intersections in the attainment plan. It is assumed that all vehicles in the intersections are operating in fully warmed-up mode. The percentage of heavy-duty gas trucks in the intersections under study is the same or lower than the percentages used for the intersections in the attainment plan analysis. It is assumed that the traffic distribution at the intersection under study do not vary from the EMFAC standards. Average delay and queue length for each approach are the same or less for the intersection under study compared to those found in the intersections in the attainment plan. The predicted LOS for the intersections under study range from A to F. The LOS for the intersections in the attainment plan are not listed; however, the traffic counts and intersection geometries correspond to LOS F for three out of four intersections in the attainment plan. The background concentration in the area of the intersections under study is 1.9 ppm for 1 hour and 0.6 ppm for 8 hours, which is lower than the background concentrations for the intersection in the attainment plan. These varied from 5.3 to 12.2 ppm for 1 hour and 3.7 to 9.9 ppm for 8 hours. The project is not expected to result in any concentrations exceeding the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. Therefore, a detailed CALINE4 CO hot-spot analysis was not required. Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) The project is within a nonattainment area for the Federal PM2.5 and within an attainment/maintenance area for Federal PM10 standards. The project does not qualify as a POAQC for the following reasons: Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-22 i) The project is not a new or expanded highway project. The project is an interchange reconstruction project (Railroad Canyon Road) and a new interchange construction project (Franklin Street) that does not increase the capacity of I-15. This type of project improves freeway interchange operations by reducing traffic congestion and improving merge operations. Based on the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2014), the Build Alternatives would increase the capacity of Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street. However, the traffic volumes would not exceed the 125,000 average daily trips threshold for a POAQC. In addition, the total truck percentages along Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street would not exceed the 8 percent threshold, and the total truck annual average daily traffic (AADT) would not exceed the 10,000-vehicle threshold for POAQC. The future traffic volumes along Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, and other local roadways are provided in Section 2.7. ii) The project does not affect intersections that operate at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles. Based on the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2014) the Build Alternatives would reduce the delay and improve the LOS at intersections within the project vicinity. The LOS conditions in the project vicinity with and without the Build Alternatives are provided in Section 2.7. iii) The project does not include the construction of a new bus or rail terminal. iv) The project does not expand an existing bus or rail terminal. v) The project is not in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the PM2.5 and PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. As discussed above, the project-level particulate matter hot-spot analysis was presented to SCAG‘s TCWG for discussion and review on February 24, 2015.. The Build Alternatives meet the CAA requirements and 40 CFR 93.116 without any PM10 or PM2.5 hot-spot analysis. The Build Alternatives would not create a new, or worsen an existing, PM10 or PM2.5 violation. Mobile-Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, the EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile-Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the CAA. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted into the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-23 In December 2012, the FHWA issued guidance to advise FHWA division offices as to when and how to analyze MSATs in the NEPA process for highways. This document is an update to the guidance released in February 2006 and September 2009. The guidance is described as interim because MSAT science is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will update the guidance. This analysis follows the FHWA guidance. Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete In FHWA’s view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in mobile source air toxic (MSAT) emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action. The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSATs. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is “a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects” (EPA, available at https://www.epa.gov/iris/). Each report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSATs, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). A number of HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA’s Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (October 12, 2016). Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are: cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI Special Report 16, available at https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/mobile-source-air- toxics-critical-reviewliterature-exposure-and-health-effects) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease. The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts – each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some of the information needed is unavailable. There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-24 occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI (Special Report 16, available at https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/mobile-source-air-toxicscritical- review-literature-exposure-and-health-effects). As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA states that with respect to diesel engine exhaust, “[t]he absence of adequate data to develop a sufficiently confident dose-response relationship from the epidemiologic studies has prevented the estimation of inhalation carcinogenic risk (available at https://www.epa.gov/iris).” There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an “acceptable” level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA’s approach to addressing risk in its two-step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable (available at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ internet/opinions.nsf/284E23FFE079CD5985257800005 0C9DA/$file/07-1053-1120274.pdf ). Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities, plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis For each alternative in this IS/EA (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4), the amount of mobile source air toxics (MSAT) emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. Because the VMT estimated for the No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) is higher than for any of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4), higher levels of MSAT are not expected from any of the Build Alternatives compared to the No Build. Refer to Table 2.15.K. In addition, because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives are nearly the same, varying by less than 2.9 percent, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of the EPA’s national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 90 percent from 2010 to 2050 (Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, FHWA, October 12, 2016). 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. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-25 Table 2.15.K Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled, by Alternative1 Alternative Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Existing/Baseline 2013 180,207,163 Open to Traffic 2019 (Phase 1) No Build (Alternative 1)208,008,803 Build Alternative 2 206,722,474 Build Alternative 3 202,061,917 Build Alternative 4 208,008,803 20-Year Horizon/Design-Year 2040 No Build (Alternative 1)302,687,406 Build Alternative 2 300,178,943 Build Alternative 3 298,216,658 Build Alternative 4 300,178,943 1 Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) values derived from Daily VMT values multiplied by 347, per ARB methodology (ARB 2008). ARB = California Air Resources Board VMT = vehicle miles traveled Under each alternative there may 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 new roadway sections that would be built at the new Franklin Street overcrossing, under all Build Alternatives. 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 sum, under all Build Alternatives in the design year, it is expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No Build Alternative, due to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, and due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Impacts identified for Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Historical air quality data indicate that existing CO levels for the project area and the general vicinity do not exceed either the State or Federal ambient air quality standards. The project under this alternative would help to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on roadway links in the project vicinity. The project is located in an attainment/maintenance area for Federal CO standards. Using the Caltrans CO Protocol, a screening and a CO hot-spot analysis were conducted to determine whether the project would result in any CO hot spots. It was determined that the project would not result in any exceedances of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. The project is within a nonattainment area for Federal standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns and within an attainment/maintenance area for 10 microns in size (PM2.5 and PM10, respectively). Therefore, per 40 CFR, Part 93, analyses are required for conformity purposes. However, the EPA does not require hot-spot analyses, qualitative or quantitative, for projects that are not listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) as an air quality concern. Therefore, a PM2.5/PM10 hot- spot analysis was submitted to the TCWG for its review. On February 24, 2015, the TCWG determined that the project is not a Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC). Because the proposed interchange reconfiguration and new interchange project does not generate new regional vehicular trips, no new regional vehicular emissions would occur. The Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-26 project may have a beneficial effect in helping to reduce congestion on roadway links in the project vicinity. The project is required to include an analysis of MSAT as part of the NEPA process for highways. It is expected that there would be similar or lower MSAT emissions in the study area under this alternative relative to the No Build Alternative in the design year (2040) due to the improvement in the LOS and reduction of the delay at the project intersections. As identified for Alternative 2, Alterative 3 would not require any operational avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures as this alternative would not result in potential operational air quality impacts. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Impacts identified for Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Historical air quality data indicates that existing CO levels for the project area and the general vicinity do not exceed either the State or Federal ambient air quality standards. The project under this alternative would help to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on roadway links in the project vicinity. The project is located in an attainment/maintenance area for Federal CO standards. Using Caltrans CO Protocol, a screening and a CO hot-spot analysis were conducted to determine whether the project would result in any CO hot spots. It was determined that the project would not result in any exceedances of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. The project is within a nonattainment area for Federal standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns and within an attainment/maintenance area for 10 microns in size (PM2.5 and PM10, respectively). Therefore, per 40 CFR, Part 93, analyses are required for conformity purposes. However, the EPA does not require hot-spot analyses, qualitative or quantitative, for projects that are not listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) as an air quality concern. Therefore, a PM2.5/PM10 hot- spot analysis was submitted to the TCWG for its review. On February 24, 2015, the TCWG determined that the project is not a POAQC. Because the proposed interchange reconfiguration and new interchange project does not generate new regional vehicular trips, no new regional vehicular emissions would occur. The project may have a beneficial effect in helping to reduce congestion on roadway links in the project vicinity. The project was determined to be in regional conformity. The project is listed in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1, which was found to conform to the SIP by the SCAG on April 12, 2017, and the FHWA and the FTA made a regional conformity finding on May 12, 2017. The project is also in the 2017 FTIP, which was found to be conforming by the FHWA/FTA on July 24, 2017. The project is required to include an analysis of MSAT as part of the NEPA process for highways. It is expected that there would be similar or lower MSAT emissions in the study area under this alternative relative to the No Build Alternative in the design year (2040) due to the improvement in the LOS and reduction of the delay at the project intersections. As identified for Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would not require any operational avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures as this alternative would not result in potential operational air quality impacts. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-27 CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: III. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. It includes all of Orange County, the non-Antelope Valley portions of Los Angeles County, and the non-desert portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The current regional AQMP is the 2012 Final AQMP1 adopted by the SCAQMD on December 7, 2012. The 2012 Final AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the Federal particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards through a more focused control of sulfur oxides (SOX), directly-emitted PM2.5, and nitrogen oxides (NOX) supplemented with reactive organic gases (ROG) by 2015. The 8-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and ROG reductions to meet the standard by 2024 assuming a bump-up2 is obtained. The Basin is currently a federal and state non-attainment area for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone. The 2012 AQMP was based on assumptions provided by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to model for the most recent motor vehicle and demographic data, respectively. The air quality levels projected in the 2012 AQMP assume that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater projects will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP.) The 2012 AQMP has also assumed that these development projects will implement strategies to reduce construction and operational emissions. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. III. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a federal and State nonattainment area for ozone (O3) and particulate matter PM2.5 and within a nonattainment area for State PM10 standards and attainment/maintenance area for federal PM10 standards. Emissions from construction activities typically include fugitive dust from grading and other surface disturbance activities (e.g., demolition, trenching, dirt hauling, movement of construction support vehicles across the project area, and exhaust emissions from construction equipment). During construction, disturbed and exposed soil areas, stockpiles, etc., on the project area could potentially be subject to wind erosion as well as dry weather conditions. Exhaust and fugitive dust emissions generated during project construction will vary daily as construction activity levels change. Therefore, the project would not create a new, or worsen an existing, PM10 or 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 AQMP, February 2013. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality- management-plan (accessed February 02, 2015). 2 A “bump-up” is a voluntary reclassification of a nonattainment area to a higher classification allowing for an extension of an attainment deadline. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-28 PM2.5 violation. Furthermore, maximum daily construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants do not exceed daily SCAQMD significance thresholds for each criteria pollutant. With the implementation of standard construction measures (providing 50 percent effectiveness) such as frequent watering (e.g., minimum twice per day) and Minimization Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, presented below in Section 2.15.4, fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities would be minimized. No significant impacts related to a violation of an air quality standard or a substantial contribution to and existing or proposed air quality violation would occur with project implementation. III. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to CEQA Air Quality Response b) above. III. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in temporary, short-term construction- related increases in pollutant concentrations specifically associated with fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. As identified above, maximum daily construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants do not exceed daily SCAQMD significance thresholds for each criteria pollutant. Implementation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations in addition to implementation of Minimization Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, presented below in Section 2.15.4, would minimize potential short-term adverse project-related air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Impacts are less than significant. III. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, and dairies. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the project may result from equipment exhaust and asphalt paving during construction of the project. These types of odors are temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances associated with odor. Therefore, odors associated with the project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 2.15.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following SCAQMD and Caltrans standard measures are required to minimize potential project impacts to air quality during construction: Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-29 Minimization Measures AQ-1 During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions will be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All material transported on site or off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. These control techniques will be indicated in project specifications. Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project will be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. AQ-2 Project grading plans will show the duration of construction. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles will be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturers’ specifications. AQ-3 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on site will comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4), as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. AQ-4 The contractor shall comply with air-pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances, and statues that apply to work performed under the Contract, including those provided in Government Code Section 11017 (Pub Contract Code Section 10231) (Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction Section 14.9-02). AQ-5 All construction vehicles both on- and off-site shall be prohibited from idling in excess of 10 minutes. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.15-30 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-1 2.16 Noise 2.16.1 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. 2.16.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a strictly baseline versus build analysis to assess whether a project will have a noise impact. If a 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. The CEQA noise analysis is included at the end of this section. 2.16.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772 For highway transportation projects with FHWA (and Caltrans, as assigned) involvement, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and the associated implementing regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [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 A-weighted decibels [dBA]) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). Table 2.16.A lists the NAC for use in the NEPA 23 CFR 772 analysis. Table 2.16.B lists 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. According to Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 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. Caltrans 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 5 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. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-2 Table 2.16.A: Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category NAC, Hourly A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA Leq(h)1 Description of Activities 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 B2 67 Exterior Residential C2 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, daycare 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, daycare 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 -- Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, railyards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. G -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. Source: Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR 772. 1 The Leq(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All values are in dBA. 2 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq(h) = equivalent continuous sound level per hour NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-3 Table 2.16.B: Noise Levels of Common Activities Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement (September 2013). dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = feet mph = miles per hour The reasonableness determination is basically a cost-benefit analysis. Factors used in determining whether a proposed noise abatement measure is reasonable include: the construction cost of the barrier, the noise reduction design goal (a noise level reduction of 7 dBA or more at one or more benefited receptors), and the viewpoints of benefitted receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors). 2.16.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Noise Study Report (NSR) (August 2015) Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) (December 2015) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-4 2.16.2.1 Surrounding Land Use and Sensitive Receptors Existing land uses in the project area include single-family and multifamily residences, playgrounds, hotels, churches, a school, a landfill, restaurants, medical facilities, a casino, vacant land, office uses, and commercial uses. Short-term monitoring locations were selected to represent noise-sensitive land uses within the project area. Two long-term monitoring sites were selected to capture the diurnal traffic noise level pattern and to identify the peak traffic noise hour in the project area. Some of the 187 receptors were not evaluated under all alternatives because they are either located beyond the southern limits of the project or they would be fully acquired by the project. A total of 169, 181 and 164 receptors under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 respectively, were modeled to represent noise- sensitive land uses in the project area. These modeled receptors and short-term and long-term monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 2.16.1 were selected to represent noise-sensitive land uses in the project vicinity. Receptors, as illustrated, are those locations at which noise impacts were evaluated. 2.16.2.2 Existing Noise Levels The primary source of noise in the project area is traffic on the Interstate 15 (I-15), Railroad Canyon Road and local roadways. Ambient (15-minute) noise level measurements were conducted for the NSR (August 2015) to document existing noise levels at 34 representative sensitive receptor locations in the project area. The noise monitoring locations are illustrated in previously referenced Figure 2.16.1 while Table 2.16.C identifies the existing traffic noise levels at the modeled receptor locations. The short-term noise level measurements were used to calibrate the noise model and to predict the noise levels at all modeled sensitive receptors in the project area. The existing p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2014) prepared for the project. As identified in Table 2.16.C, of the modeled receptor locations, 3 receptors currently approach or exceed the 67 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) NAC for residential uses under the existing traffic noise condition. 2.16.3 Environmental Consequences 2.16.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no construction and no temporary project-related noise generated. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET 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 and from the project site. These activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the project 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 84 dBA maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) from trucks passing at 50 feet (ft) would occur. However, the projected construction traffic will be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on I-15, Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, Main Street, and other affected streets, and its associated long-term noise level change will not be perceptible. Therefore, short-term, construction-related worker commutes and equipment transport noise impacts would be less than substantial. SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 1 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-6 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 2 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-8 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 3 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-10 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 4 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-12 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 5 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-14 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 6 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-16 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014. I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-1_N oiseMonitoring.mxd (10/9/2015) FIGURE 2.16.1 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental AssessmentSensitive Noise Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET #*Monitoring Locations !(Modeled Receptor Locations ")24-Hour Monitoring Locations Existing Caltrans ROW Existing City ROW Existing Walls Sheet 7 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-18This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-19 Table 2.16.C: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Receptor No. Location Land Use No. of Dwelling Units/ Receptors Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Activity Category (NAC) R-1 Grape Street Vacant Land 1 -- G R-2 Grape Street Church 1 57/371 C(67)/D(52) R-3 Grape Street Residential 1 -- B(67) R-4 Grape Street Residential 1 -- B(67) R-5 Grape Street Residential 1 -- B(67) R-6 Mesa Drive Residential 1 -- B(67) R-7 Lakeview Terrace Residential 2 -- B(67) R-8 Sylvester Road Residential 1 -- B(67) R-9 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 63 B(67) R-10 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 61 B(67) R-11 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 61 B(67) R-12 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 62 B(67) R-13 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 63 B(67) R-14 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 61 B(67) R-15 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 62 B(67) R-16 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 63 B(67) R-17 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 672 B(67) R-18 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 63 B(67) R-19 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 65 B(67) R-20 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 58 B(67) R-21 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 59 B(67) R-22 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 61 B(67) R-23 Lakeview Terrace Residential 1 63 B(67) R-24 Malaga Road Casino 1 68 E4 R-25 Casino Drive Hotel 1 54 E(72) R-26 Casino Drive Hotel 1 64 E(72) R-27 Casino Drive Church 1 62 D(52) R-28 Casino Drive Car Wash 1 62 E(72) R-29 Casino Drive Hotel 1 56 E(72) R-30 Casino Drive Restaurant 1 60 E(72) R-31 Mission Trail School 1 59/391 C(67)/D(52) R-32 Casino Drive Vacant Land 1 60 G R-33 Vista Way Residential 2 59 B(67) R-34 Vista Way Residential 2 60 B(67) R-35 Vista Way Residential 2 60 B(67) R-36 Vista Way Residential 2 60 B(67) R-37 Vista Way Residential 2 60 B(67) R-38 Vista Way Residential 2 59 B(67) R-39 Vista Way Playground 1 58 C(67) R-40 Vista Way Residential 2 56 B(67) R-41 Vista Way Residential 2 55 B(67) R-42 Boulder Road Residential 2 60 B(67) R-43 Boulder Road Residential 2 58 B(67) R-44 Boulder Road Residential 2 56 B(67) R-45 Boulder Road Residential 2 59 B(67) R-46 Park Point Residential 2 59 B(67) R-47 Park Point Pool 1 61 C(67) R-48 Park Point Residential 2 57 B(67) R-49 Park Point Residential 2 57 B(67) R-50 Park Point Residential 2 57 B(67) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-20 Table 2.16.C: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Receptor No. Location Land Use No. of Dwelling Units/ Receptors Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Activity Category (NAC) R-51 Oak Tree Residential 2 61 B(67) R-52 Oak Tree Residential 2 60 B(67) R-53 Oak Tree Residential 2 58 B(67) R-54 Drexel Court Residential 2 65 B(67) R-55 Drexel Court Residential 2 64 B(67) R-56 Grape Street Restaurant 1 58 E(72) R-57 Grape Street Commercial 1 59 E R-58 Grape Street Restaurant 1 71 E R-59 Grape Street Restaurant 1 66 E(72) R-60 Grape Street Commercial 1 68 E R-61 Grape Street Commercial 1 62 E R-62 Railroad Canyon Road Commercial 1 66 E R-63 Casino Drive Restaurant 1 65 E R-64 Casino Drive Commercial 1 58 E R-65 Casino Drive Restaurant 1 57 E(72) R-66 Casino Drive Commercial 1 65 E R-67 Diamond Drive Commercial 1 64 E R-68 Mission Trail Commercial 1 58 E R-69 Mission Trail Restaurant 1 63 E R-70 Mission Trail Restaurant 1 64 E R-71 Mission Trail Commercial 1 69 E R-72 Diamond Drive Commercial 1 68 E R-73 Diamond Drive Medical Facility 1 65/451 D(52) R-74 East Lakeshore Drive Office 1 66 E R-75 Railroad Canyon Road Restaurant 1 68 E(72) R-76 East Lakeshore Drive Commercial 1 65 E R-77 Diamond Drive Restaurant 1 67 E R-78 Diamond Drive Commercial 1 60 E R-79 Auto Center Drive Commercial 1 67 E R-80 Auto Center Drive Hotel 1 64 E(72) R-81 Railroad Canyon Road Restaurant 1 66 E(72) R-82 Summerhill Drive Restaurant 1 67 E R-83 Railroad Canyon Road Commercial 1 68 E R-84 Railroad Canyon Road Commercial 1 72 E R-85 Canyon Estates Drive Hotel 1 70 E R-86 Canyon Estates Drive Medical Facility 1 69/443 D(52) R-87 Canyon Estates Drive Vacant Land 1 72 G R-88 Canyon Estates Drive Commercial 1 68 E R-89 Auto Center Drive Commercial 1 74 E R-90 Auto Center Drive Commercial 1 73 E R-91 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 62 B(67) R-92 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 64 B(67) R-93 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 62 B(67) R-94 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 66 B(67) R-95 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 57 B(67) R-96 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 60 B(67) R-97 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 63 B(67) R-98 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 61 B(67) R-99 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 62 B(67) R-100 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 54 B(67) R-101 Auto Center Drive Pool 1 59 C(67) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-21 Table 2.16.C: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Receptor No. Location Land Use No. of Dwelling Units/ Receptors Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Activity Category (NAC) R-102 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 58 B(67) R-103 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 60 B(67) R-104 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 55 B(67) R-105 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 57 B(67) R-106 Auto Center Drive Playground 1 65 C(67) R-107 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 57 B(67) R-108 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 56 B(67) R-109 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 57 B(67) R-110 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 58 B(67) R-111 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 56 B(67) R-112 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 60 B(67) R-113 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 57 B(67) R-114 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 54 B(67) R-115 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 53 B(67) R-116 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 55 B(67) R-117 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 57 B(67) R-118 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 60 B(67) R-119 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 56 B(67) R-120 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 59 B(67) R-121 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 54 B(67) R-122 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 56 B(67) R-123 Auto Center Drive Playground 1 59 C(67) R-124 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 59 B(67) R-125 Auto Center Drive Residential 2 60 B(67) R-126 Auto Center Drive Commercial 1 53 E R-127 Franklin Street Vacant Land 1 54 G R-128 Avenue 6 Residential 1 48 B(67) R-129 Avenue 6 Residential 1 47 B(67) R-130 Avenue 6 Residential 1 47 B(67) R-131 Avenue 6 Residential 1 50 B(67) R-132 Stoney Creek Drive Residential 2 63 B(67) R-133 Stoney Creek Drive Residential 2 61 B(67) R-134 Stoney Creek Drive Residential 2 62 B(67) R-135 Stoney Creek Drive Residential 1 60 B(67) R-136 Stoney Creek Drive Residential 1 53 B(67) R-137 Stoney Creek Drive Residential 1 52 B(67) R-138 Sagecrest Drive Residential 1 59 B(67) R-139 Sagecrest Drive Residential 1 56 B(67) R-140 Sagecrest Drive Residential 1 53 B(67) R-141 Sagecrest Drive Residential 1 52 B(67) R-142 Canyon View Drive Residential 1 61 B(67) R-143 Canyon View Drive Residential 1 60 B(67) R-144 Canyon View Drive Residential 1 53 B(67) R-145 Canyon View Drive Residential 1 52 B(67) R-146 Grunder Drive Landfill 1 60 F R-147 Grunder Drive Vacant Land 1 63 G R-148 Grunder Drive Vacant Land 1 64 G R-149 Grunder Drive Vacant Land 1 63 G R-150 East Franklin Street Vacant Land 1 60 G R-151 East Franklin Street Vacant Land 1 60 G R-152 East Franklin Street Vacant Land 1 56 G Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-22 Table 2.16.C: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Receptor No. Location Land Use No. of Dwelling Units/ Receptors Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Activity Category (NAC) R-153 East Franklin Street Vacant Land 1 64 G R-154 Rupard Street Residential 1 57 B(67) R-155 Rupard Street Residential 1 60 B(67) R-156 Flint Street Residential 1 61 B(67) R-157 Adobe Street Residential 1 63 B(67) R-158 East Hill Street Residential 1 65 B(67) R-159 East Hill Street Residential 1 64 B(67) R-160 Adobe Street Residential 1 62 B(67) R-161 Adobe Street Residential 1 61 B(67) R-162 East Hill Street Residential 1 64 B(67) R-163 East Hill Street Residential 1 61 B(67) R-164 Adobe Street Residential 1 56 B(67) R-165 Adobe Street Residential 1 56 B(67) R-166 Adobe Street Residential 1 55 B(67) R-167 Adobe Street Residential 1 57 B(67) R-168 East Hill Street Residential 1 58 B(67) R-169 East Hill Street Residential 1 61 B(67) R-170 East Hill Street Residential 1 60 B(67) R-171 Granite Street Residential 1 57 B(67) R-172 Granite Street Residential 1 62 B(67) R-173 Lookout Drive Residential 1 59 B(67) R-174 Lookout Drive Residential 1 54 B(67) R-175 North Ellis Street Residential 1 59 B(67) R-176 North Ellis Street Residential 1 61 B(67) R-177 Granite Street Residential 1 61 B(67) R-178 Granite Street Residential 1 60 B(67) R-179 Lookout Drive Residential 1 60 B(67) R-180 Lookout Drive Residential 1 60 B(67) R-181 North Ellis Street Residential 1 59 B(67) R-182 North Ellis Street Residential 1 56 B(67) R-183 North Ellis Street Residential 1 60 B(67) R-184 North Ellis Street Residential 1 60 B(67) R-185 Minthorn Street Residential 1 67 B(67) R-186 Minthorn Street Vacant Land 1 66 G R-187 Minthorn Street Vacant Land 1 73 G Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 2 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 3 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 4 There are no outdoor frequent human use areas associated with this land use. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-23 The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and roadway construction. Construction is performed in discrete 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, therefore, the noise levels at the project area 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 2.16.D identifies the typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between a piece of equipment and a noise receptor. Table 2.16.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Spec 721.5601 Lmax at 50 ft Actual Measured2 Lmax at 50 ft Backhoes 80 78 Compactor (ground) 80 83 Cranes 85 81 Dozers 85 82 Dump Truck 84 76 Excavators 85 81 Flatbed Trucks 84 74 Front-End Loaders 80 79 Graders 85 N/A3 Jackhammer 85 89 Pickup Truck 55 75 Pneumatic Tools 85 85 Pumps 77 81 Rock Drill 85 81 Roller 85 80 Scrapers 85 84 Tractors 84 N/A Vibratory Pile Driver 95 101 Source: Federal Highway Administration. Roadway Construction Noise Model (January 2006). Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the CA/T program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project. 2 The maximum noise level was developed based on the average noise level measured for each piece of equipment during the CA/T program in Boston, Massachusetts. 3 Since the maximum noise level based on the average noise level measured for this piece of equipment was not available, the maximum noise level developed based on Spec 721.560 was used. CA/T = Central Artery/Tunnel ft = foot/feet Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level N/A = Not Applicable Typical noise levels at 50 ft from an active construction area range up to 88 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 and compacting equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, front loaders, compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Construction of the project is expected to require the use of graders, bulldozers, water trucks, and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated between 55 and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area for the Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-24 grading phase. As identified in Table 2.16.D, the maximum noise level generated by each grader is assumed to be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the grader in operation. Each bulldozer would generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The maximum noise level generated by water trucks and pickup trucks is approximately 55 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. The worst-case composite noise level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from an active construction area. The closest sensitive receptors are located within 50 ft of the project construction area. Therefore, these receptor locations may be subject to short-term noise higher than the 88 dBA maximum noise level (Lmax) generated by construction activities within the project area. With Minimization Measures N-1 and N-2 provided later, the potential short-term noise impacts during project construction would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Impacts related to temporary noise generated by the project under Alternative 3 would be similar to impacts identified for Alternative 2. With Minimization Measures N-1 and N-2, the potential short-term noise impacts during project construction would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Impacts related to temporary noise generated by the project under Alternative 4 would be similar to impacts identified for Alternative 2. With Minimization Measures N-1 and N-2, the potential short-term noise impacts during project construction would not be adverse. 2.16.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Potential long-term noise impacts under the No Build Alternative would be solely from traffic noise. Future No Build Alternative noise levels are provided in Table 2.16.E. Of the modeled receptors, 6 receptors would or would continue to approach or exceed the NAC under the No Build Alternative future year conditions. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Long-Term Exterior Noise Impacts The project as proposed under Alternative 2 is considered a Type 1 project because it would alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of Railroad Canyon Road, the I-15 on- and off- ramps at Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street, and add a new overcrossing at Franklin Street. Potential long-term noise associated with project operations under this alternative would be solely from traffic noise. Traffic noise impacts occur when either of the following occurs: (1) the traffic noise level at a sensitive receptor is predicted to approach or exceed the NAC, or (2) the predicted traffic noise level at a sensitive receptor is 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise level at that sensitive receptor. When traffic noise impacts occur, noise abatement measures must be considered. Future traffic noise levels at all receptor locations were determined with existing walls using 2040 p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes obtained from the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2014). Traffic noise was evaluated under existing conditions, design year no build conditions (future no build), and design year conditions with the project alternatives. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-25 Table 2.16.E: Alternative 2 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-1 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-2 Grape Street 57/372 58/382 58/382 1 R-3 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-4 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-5 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-6 Mesa Drive --1 --1 --1 N/A R-7 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-8 Sylvester Road --1 --1 --1 N/A R-9 Lakeview Terrace 631 641 641 1 R-10 Lakeview Terrace 611 621 621 1 R-11 Lakeview Terrace 611 621 621 1 R-12 Lakeview Terrace 621 631 631 1 R-13 Lakeview Terrace 631 641 641 1 R-14 Lakeview Terrace 611 621 621 1 R-15 Lakeview Terrace 621 631 631 1 R-16 Lakeview Terrace 63 64 65 2 R-17 Lakeview Terrace 673 67 68 1 R-18 Lakeview Terrace 631 651 651 2 R-19 Lakeview Terrace 651 661 661 1 R-20 Lakeview Terrace 581 591 591 1 R-21 Lakeview Terrace 59 60 60 1 R-22 Lakeview Terrace 61 62 62 1 R-23 Lakeview Terrace 63 64 64 1 R-24 Malaga Road 68 69 70 2 R-25 Casino Drive 54 55 55 1 R-26 Casino Drive 64 65 65 1 R-27 Casino Drive 62 64 64 2 R-28 Casino Drive 62 63 63 1 R-29 Casino Drive 56 58 58 2 R-30 Casino Drive 60 62 62 2 R-31 Mission Trail 59/392 61/412 61/412 2 R-32 Casino Drive 60 62 62 2 R-33 Vista Way 59 61 61 2 R-34 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-35 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-36 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-37 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-38 Vista Way 59 61 61 2 R-39 Vista Way 58 60 60 2 R-40 Vista Way 56 58 58 2 R-41 Vista Way 55 56 57 2 R-42 Boulder Road 60 61 61 1 R-43 Boulder Road 58 60 60 2 R-44 Boulder Road 56 57 57 1 R-45 Boulder Road 59 61 61 2 R-46 Park Point 59 61 61 2 R-47 Park Point 61 63 63 2 R-48 Park Point 57 59 59 2 R-49 Park Point 57 58 58 1 R-50 Park Point 57 58 58 1 R-51 Oak Tree 61 62 63 2 R-52 Oak Tree 60 61 62 2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-26 Table 2.16.E: Alternative 2 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-53 Oak Tree 58 59 59 1 R-54 Drexel Court 65 67 67 2 R-55 Drexel Court 64 65 66 2 R-56 Grape Street 58 59 59 1 R-57 Grape Street 59 61 60 1 R-58 Grape Street 71 74 73 2 R-59 Grape Street 66 68 67 1 R-60 Grape Street 68 70 69 1 R-61 Grape Street 62 66 64 2 R-62 Railroad Canyon Road 66 69 68 2 R-63 Casino Drive 65 67 67 2 R-64 Casino Drive 58 60 60 2 R-65 Casino Drive 57 59 59 2 R-66 Casino Drive 65 67 67 2 R-67 Diamond Drive 64 66 66 2 R-68 Mission Trail 58 59 59 1 R-69 Mission Trail 63 65 65 2 R-70 Mission Trail 64 66 66 2 R-71 Mission Trail 69 71 71 2 R-72 Diamond Drive 68 69 69 1 R-73 Diamond Drive 65/452 66/462 67/472 2 R-74 East Lakeshore Drive 66 68 68 2 R-75 Railroad Canyon Road 68 70 69 1 R-76 East Lakeshore Drive 65 67 67 2 R-77 Diamond Drive 67 69 68 1 R-78 Diamond Drive 60 62 62 2 R-79 Auto Center Drive 67 69 69 2 R-80 Auto Center Drive 64 65 65 1 R-81 Railroad Canyon Road 66 68 67 1 R-82 Summerhill Drive 67 70 68 1 R-83 Railroad Canyon Road 68 71 70 2 R-84 Railroad Canyon Road 72 74 74 2 R-85 Canyon Estates Drive 70 70 70 0 R-86 Canyon Estates Drive 69/444 70/454 71/464 2 R-87 Canyon Estates Drive 72 73 75 3 R-88 Canyon Estates Drive 68 69 70 2 R-89 Auto Center Drive 74 75 76 2 R-90 Auto Center Drive 73 73 76 3 R-91 Auto Center Drive 62 63 63 1 R-92 Auto Center Drive 64 65 66 2 R-93 Auto Center Drive 62 63 64 2 R-94 Auto Center Drive 66 66 68 2 R-95 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-96 Auto Center Drive 60 61 61 1 R-97 Auto Center Drive 63 64 64 1 R-98 Auto Center Drive 61 62 63 2 R-99 Auto Center Drive 62 63 63 1 R-100 Auto Center Drive 54 55 55 1 R-101 Auto Center Drive 59 59 60 1 R-102 Auto Center Drive 58 59 59 1 R-103 Auto Center Drive 60 62 63 3 R-104 Auto Center Drive 55 56 57 2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-27 Table 2.16.E: Alternative 2 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-105 Auto Center Drive 57 59 59 2 R-106 Auto Center Drive 65 66 67 2 R-107 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-108 Auto Center Drive 56 57 57 1 R-109 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-110 Auto Center Drive 58 60 62 4 R-111 Auto Center Drive 56 57 58 2 R-112 Auto Center Drive 60 62 64 4 R-113 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-114 Auto Center Drive 54 56 56 2 R-115 Auto Center Drive 53 55 55 2 R-116 Auto Center Drive 55 56 57 2 R-117 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-118 Auto Center Drive 60 62 64 4 R-119 Auto Center Drive 56 57 59 3 R-120 Auto Center Drive 59 61 63 4 R-121 Auto Center Drive 54 55 56 2 R-122 Auto Center Drive 56 58 60 4 R-123 Auto Center Drive 59 61 62 3 R-124 Auto Center Drive 59 61 62 3 R-125 Auto Center Drive 60 62 63 3 R-126 Auto Center Drive 53 55 55 2 R-127 Franklin Street 54 56 55 1 R-128 Avenue 6 48 49 48 0 R-129 Avenue 6 47 48 49 2 R-130 Avenue 6 47 49 50 3 R-131 Avenue 6 50 52 53 3 R-132 Stoney Creek Drive 63 64 65 2 R-133 Stoney Creek Drive 61 63 63 2 R-134 Stoney Creek Drive 62 63 63 1 R-135 Stoney Creek Drive 60 61 61 1 R-136 Stoney Creek Drive 53 55 55 2 R-137 Stoney Creek Drive 52 54 54 2 R-138 Sagecrest Drive 59 60 60 1 R-139 Sagecrest Drive 56 58 58 2 R-140 Sagecrest Drive 53 55 54 1 R-141 Sagecrest Drive 52 53 53 1 R-142 Canyon View Drive 61 63 63 2 R-143 Canyon View Drive 60 61 61 1 R-144 Canyon View Drive 53 54 55 2 R-145 Canyon View Drive 52 53 52 0 R-146 Grunder Drive 60 61 61 1 R-147 Grunder Drive 63 64 63 0 R-148 Grunder Drive 64 63 63 -1 R-149 Grunder Drive 63 64 66 3 R-150 East Franklin Street 60 62 58 -2 R-151 East Franklin Street 60 61 55 -5 R-152 East Franklin Street 56 57 58 2 R-153 East Franklin Street 64 65 60 -4 R-154 Rupard Street 57 58 56 -1 R-155 Rupard Street 60 60 --5 N/A R-156 Flint Street 61 62 62 1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-28 Table 2.16.E: Alternative 2 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-157 Adobe Street 63 63 63 0 R-158 East Hill Street 65 66 66 1 R-159 East Hill Street 64 65 67 3 R-160 Adobe Street 62 63 63 1 R-161 Adobe Street 61 62 62 1 R-162 East Hill Street 64 65 65 1 R-163 East Hill Street 61 62 63 2 R-164 Adobe Street 56 57 57 1 R-165 Adobe Street 56 56 56 0 R-166 Adobe Street 55 56 56 1 R-167 Adobe Street 57 58 58 1 R-168 East Hill Street 58 59 59 1 R-169 East Hill Street 61 62 64 3 R-170 East Hill Street 60 61 62 2 R-171 Granite Street 57 58 60 3 R-172 Granite Street 62 63 63 1 R-173 Lookout Drive 59 60 60 1 R-174 Lookout Drive 54 55 55 1 R-175 North Ellis Street 59 60 60 1 R-176 North Ellis Street 61 62 62 1 R-177 Granite Street 61 62 63 2 R-178 Granite Street 60 61 62 2 R-179 Lookout Drive 60 61 61 1 R-180 Lookout Drive 60 61 62 2 R-181 North Ellis Street 59 60 61 2 R-182 North Ellis Street 56 57 57 1 R-183 North Ellis Street 60 62 62 2 R-184 North Ellis Street 60 61 61 1 R-185 Minthorn Street 67 68 71 4 R-186 Minthorn Street 66 67 73 7 R-187 Minthorn Street 73 75 75 2 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 The shaded area represents receptors located beyond the limits of construction under Alternative 2. Traffic noise impacts were not assessed for these receptors. 2 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 3 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 4 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 5 This receptor would be fully acquired by the project under Alternative 2. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-29 For roadway segments that exceed the worst-case traffic volume of 1,950 vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) for the mainline freeway and 900 vplph for on-ramps, the worst-case traffic volumes will be used instead of the p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes. The worst-case traffic condition is assumed to be Levels of Service (LOS) D/E and, traffic noise is generally loudest when vehicles on a given roadway travel at free-flowing traffic conditions. Accordingly, these worst-case traffic volume assumptions are based on the maximum number of vehicles that can typically travel in a given lane while still resulting in free-flowing traffic conditions. Table 2.16.E provides the existing and future worst-case traffic noise level results for Alternative 2. Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 9 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Of the modeled receptors, one of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C. The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC under Alternative 2 traffic conditions: Receptors R-17: This receptor location represents existing residences along Lakeview Terrace on the west side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road. Currently, there is an approximately 5 ft high earthen berm located along the edge of shoulder that partially shields these residences. Noise barriers (NB) No. 2-1 for Alternative 2 was modeled at the top of slope within the State right-of-way to shield these residences. Receptors R-54 and R-55: These receptor locations represent existing residences along Drexel Court on the east side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road. Currently there is an 8 ft high combination masonry block wall and Plexiglas barrier along the property line to shield these residences. Two noise barrier locations were considered to shield the impacted receptors. Under the first scenario, Existing Wall No. 5 (EW No. 5) was modeled at its current location at heights greater than the existing wall and renamed as NB No. 2-2 for Alternative 2 to shield these residences. Under the second scenario, NB No. 2-2B for Alternative 2 was modeled along the edge of road on the west side of Grape Street to shield these residences. Receptors R-92, R-94, and R-106: These receptor locations represent existing residences and the playground along Auto Center Drive on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street. Currently, there is a 3 to 6 ft high wall along the property line to shield the playground and residences. Two noise barrier locations were considered to shield the impacted receptors. Under the first scenario, a portion of EW No. 8 was evaluated with an increased height at its current location and renamed as NB No. 2-3 for Alternative 2, to shield these residences. Under the second scenario, a smaller section of Wall No. 8 (EW No. 8) was modeled at its current location at heights greater than the existing wall in addition to a new segment of barrier located along the west side of I-15 southbound. Both segments of the barrier were combined to be named NB No. 2-3B for Alternative 2, to shield these residences and the playground. Receptors R-158 and R-159: These receptor locations represent existing residences along East Hill Street on the west side of I-15 south of Main Street. Currently, there are no existing walls that shield these residences. One noise barrier for Alternative 2, NB No. 2-4, was modeled along the edge of shoulder to shield these residences. Receptor R-185: This receptor location represents an existing residence along Minthorn Street on the east side of I-15 south of Main Street. Currently there are no existing walls that shield this residence. One noise barrier for Alternative 2, NB No. 2-5 was modeled along the edge of shoulder to shield this residence. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-30 Under NEPA 23 CFR 772, the regulations contain NAC that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. If there is a substantial increase (12 dBA) in noise with the project and/or whether the noise approaches (within 1 dBA) or exceeds the NAC, the consideration of noise abatement is required. None of the identified receptors would result in a 12 dBA increase in noise. However, nine receptors would approach (within 1 dBA) or exceed the 67 dBA NAC threshold. Therefore, noise abatement would need to be considered for these receptors. Long-Term Interior Noise Impacts A church, school and two medical facilities were located within the project area. To determine the attenuation provided by each of the buildings, simultaneous noise measurements were taken inside and outside a room at each building. The measured building attenuation was applied to the predicted future worst-case exterior level to obtain the predicted future interior noise level. According to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, interior noise levels under Activity Category D must not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq(h). Table 2.16.F identifies the predicted traffic noise levels for buildings in the project area under Alternative 2. Table 2.16.F: Alternative 2 Interior Noise Analysis Receptor No. Location Future Noise Levels, dBA Leq(h) 2040 Noise Level Exterior (dBA Leq) Interior (dBA Leq) Exterior to Interior Noise Level Reduction R-2 Church 58 381 20 R-31 School 61 411 20 R-73 Medical Facility 67 471 20 R-86 Medical Facility 71 462 25 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 2 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level Based on these projected traffic noise levels, interior noise levels at all buildings under Alternative 2 traffic conditions would not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, no noise abatement measures for these buildings are required. Noise Abatement Consideration Noise abatement measures, such as noise barriers, were considered to shield noise-sensitive receptors located along I-15, where sensitive receptors exist and would continue to be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC. Noise barriers were analyzed for each of these sensitive receptor locations. At each location, six noise barrier heights were analyzed: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 ft. However, noise barriers with the height of 16 ft were not analyzed in locations where the modeled barrier would be located within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane (see California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] Highway Design Manual, January 2011). The following barriers were analyzed to shield the sensitive receptor locations that would be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC under Alternative 2: NB No. 2-1: A 927 ft long barrier along the top of slope within the State right-of-way on the west side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road was analyzed to shield Receptor R-17. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-31 NB No. 2-2: A 200 ft long barrier along the property line on the east side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road was analyzed to shield Receptors R-54 and R-55. NB No. 2-2B: As an alternative to NB No. 2-2, a 906 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the west side of Grape Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-54 and R-55. NB No. 2-3: A 929 ft long barrier along the property line on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-92, R-94, and R-106. NB No. 2-3B: As an alternative to NB No. 2-3, a two-segment barrier that is 1,225 ft long combined on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-92, R-94, and R-106. NB No. 2-4: A 1,305 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the west side of I-15 south of Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-158 and R-159. NB No. 2-5: A 1,058 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the east side of I-15 south of Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptor R-185. The results of the noise barrier analysis are provided in Tables 2.16.G and 2.16.H for the sensitive receptor locations that could be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC. The analyzed noise barriers for Alternative 2 are illustrated in Figure 2.16.2. Noise Barrier Feasibility A minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA must be achieved at an impacted receptor for the noise abatement measure to be considered feasible. The feasibility criterion is not necessarily a noise abatement design goal. Greater noise reductions are encouraged if they can be reasonably achieved. Feasibility may also be restricted by the following factors: (1) topography, (2) access requirements for driveways and ramps, (3) the presence of local cross streets, (4) utility conflicts, (5) other noise sources in the area, and (6) safety considerations. Of the seven modeled noise barriers evaluated for Alternative 2, four noise barriers were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more, as required to be considered feasible. NB Nos. 2-1, 2-2B, and 2-5 were determined to not be feasible because the barrier would not reduce noise levels by 5 dBA or more. Table 2.16.I lists all the feasible noise barriers for Alternative 2. Noise Barrier Reasonableness The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by considering a multitude of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: Construction cost of the barrier Noise reduction design goal (a noise level reduction of 7 dBA or more at one or more benefited receptors) Viewpoints of benefited receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-32 Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-1 --2 --3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-2 58/384 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-3 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-4 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-5 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-6 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-7 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-8 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-9 2-1 642 64 0 0 64 0 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 R-10 622 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 59 3 0 R-11 622 61 1 0 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 R-12 632 61 2 0 61 2 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 R-13 642 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 R-14 622 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 R-15 632 62 1 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 R-16 65 63 2 0 63 2 0 62 3 0 62 3 0 61 4 0 61 4 0 R-17 68 66 2 0 66 2 0 66 2 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 R-18 652 63 2 0 62 3 0 62 3 0 61 4 0 61 4 0 606 5 1 R-19 662 64 2 0 63 3 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 62 4 0 62 4 0 R-20 592 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-21 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-22 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-23 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-24 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-25 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-26 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-27 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-28 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-29 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-30 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-31 61/414 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-32 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-33 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-34 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-35 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-33Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-36 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-37 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-38 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-39 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-40 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-41 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-42 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-43 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-44 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-45 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-46 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-47 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-48 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-49 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-50 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-51 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-52 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-53 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-54 2-2 67 --7 -- -- -- -- -- 65 2 0 65 2 0 63 4 0 628 5 2 R-55 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- 65 1 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 R-56 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-57 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-58 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-59 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-60 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-61 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-62 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-63 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-64 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-65 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-66 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-67 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-68 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-69 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-70 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-34 Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-71 71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-72 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-73 67/474 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-74 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-75 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-76 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-77 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-78 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-79 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-80 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-81 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-82 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-83 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-84 74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-85 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-86 71/469 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-87 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-88 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-89 76 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-90 76 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-91 2-3 63 63 0 0 60 3 0 58 5 2 56 7 2 56 7 2 55 8 2 R-92 66 66 0 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 61 5 2 60 6 2 59 7 2 R-93 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 59 5 2 58 6 2 R-94 68 64 4 0 61 7 2 60 8 2 58 10 2 57 11 2 57 11 2 R-95 59 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 R-96 61 61 0 0 60 1 0 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 58 3 0 R-97 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 R-98 63 63 0 0 61 2 0 59 4 0 57 6 2 57 6 2 56 7 2 R-99 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 R-100 55 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 R-101 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 56 4 0 R-102 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 57 2 0 R-103 63 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-104 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 R-105 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-35Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-106 2-3 67 67 0 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 R-107 59 59 0 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 R-108 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 R-109 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-110 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-111 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-112 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-113 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-114 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-115 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-116 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-117 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-118 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-119 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-120 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-121 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-122 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-123 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-124 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-125 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-126 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-127 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-128 48 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-129 49 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-130 50 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-131 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-132 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-133 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-134 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-135 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-136 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-137 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-138 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-139 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-140 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-141 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-36 Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-142 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-143 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-144 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-145 52 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-146 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-147 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-148 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-149 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-150 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-151 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-152 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-153 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-154 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-155 --10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-156 2-4 62 61 1 0 59 3 0 58 4 0 57 5 1 57 5 1 NP11 NP 0 R-157 63 63 0 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 58 5 1 58 5 1 NP NP 0 R-158 66 64 2 0 64 2 0 61 5 1 60 6 1 60 6 1 NP NP 0 R-159 67 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 61 6 1 60 7 1 NP NP 0 R-160 63 62 1 0 59 4 0 58 5 1 58 5 1 57 6 1 NP NP 0 R-161 62 61 1 0 59 3 0 59 3 0 58 4 0 58 4 0 NP NP 0 R-162 65 63 2 0 63 2 0 61 4 0 60 5 1 60 5 1 NP NP 0 R-163 63 62 1 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 NP NP 0 R-164 57 57 0 0 56 1 0 55 2 0 55 2 0 55 2 0 NP NP 0 R-165 56 56 0 0 56 0 0 55 1 0 54 2 0 54 2 0 NP NP 0 R-166 56 55 1 0 55 1 0 54 2 0 54 2 0 54 2 0 NP NP 0 R-167 58 57 1 0 56 2 0 55 3 0 54 4 0 54 4 0 NP NP 0 R-168 59 58 1 0 58 1 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 NP NP 0 R-169 64 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 NP NP 0 R-170 62 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 59 3 0 NP NP 0 R-171 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 NP NP 0 R-172 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-173 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-174 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-175 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-176 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-177 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-37Table 2.16.G: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-178 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-179 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-180 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-181 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-182 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-183 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-184 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-185 2-5 71 70 1 0 70 1 0 70 1 0 69 2 0 68 3 0 NP NP 0 R-186 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-187 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 I.L.: Insertion Loss. 2 The shaded area represents receptors located beyond the limits of construction under Alternative 2. Traffic noise impacts were not assessed for these receptors. 3 Either no barrier was analyzed at this location because the modeled receptor would not approach or exceed the NAC or this receptor would be acquired under this alternative. 4 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 5 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 6 Although a noise level reduction of 5 dBA or more can be achieved, this noise barrier is not considered feasible because it does not attenuate noise levels by at least 5 dBA at the impacted receptor. 7 Shaded area represents the existing wall height. 8 Underlined noise levels have been attenuated by at least 5 dBA (i.e., feasible barrier height). 9 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 10 This receptor would be fully acquired by the project under Alternative 2. 11 NP = Not Permitted. Noise barriers within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane are not permitted to exceed 14 ft in height. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier NBR = Number of Benefited Receptors Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-38 Table 2.16.H: Alternative 2 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-54 2-2B 672 66 1 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 65 2 0 65 2 0 NP4 NP 0 R-55 66 65 1 0 64 2 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 NP NP 0 R-91 2-3B 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 R-92 66 65 1 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 614 5 2 R-93 64 63 1 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 R-94 68 67 1 0 67 1 0 66 2 0 66 2 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 R-95 59 58 1 0 58 1 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 R-96 61 61 0 0 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 57 4 0 57 4 0 R-97 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 595 5 2 59 5 2 R-98 63 63 0 0 61 2 0 59 4 0 585 5 2 575 6 2 57 6 2 R-99 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 R-100 55 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 R-101 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 56 4 0 55 5 2 R-102 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-103 63 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-104 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 56 1 0 R-105 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-106 67 67 0 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 R-107 59 59 0 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 R-108 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 I.L.: Insertion Loss. 2 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 3 NP = Not Permitted. Noise barriers within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane are not permitted to exceed 14 ft in height. 4 Underlined noise levels have been attenuated by at least 5 dBA (i.e., feasible barrier height). 5 Although a noise level reduction of 5 dBA or more can be achieved, this noise barrier is not considered feasible because it does not attenuate noise levels by at least 5 dBA at the impacted receptor. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier NBR = Number of Benefited Receptors SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 1 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-40 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 2 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-42 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 3 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-44 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 4 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-46 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 5 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-48 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 6 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-50 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-2_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt2.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.2 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Modeled Noise Barriers Alternative 2 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 2 Proposed ROW Sheet 7 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 2S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-52This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, And Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-53 Table 2.16.I: Alternative 2 Feasible Noise Barriers Noise Barrier No. Height (ft) Approximate Length (ft) Receptor Locations Benefited Number of Benefited Units1 2-2 162 200 R-54 2 2-3 82 929 R-94 2 10 929 R-91, R-94 4 12 929 R-91, R-92, R-94, R-98 8 14 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 10 16 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 10 2-3B 162 1,225 R-92, R-97, R-98, R-101 8 2-4 10 1,225 R-158–R-160 2 122 1,225 R-156 to R-160, R-162 6 14 1,225 R-156 to R-160, R-162 6 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Number of units that are attenuated 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier. 2 Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line-of-sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack. ft = feet A cost allowance per residence is assigned to each benefited residence (i.e., residences that receive at least 5 dBA of noise reduction from a noise barrier). The 2015 allowance is $71,000 per benefited residence. Total allowances are calculated by multiplying the cost allowance per residence by the number of benefited residences. Table 2.16.J provides additional information on the height, approximate length, receptor locations benefitted, noise attenuation range, number of benefited residences, reasonable allowance per residence, total reasonable allowance, estimated noise barrier construction costs, and whether the noise barrier is reasonable. As previously stated, all analyzed noise barriers under Alternative 2, with the exception of NB Nos. 2-1, 2-2B, and 2-5 were determined to be feasible. However, as indicated in Table 2.16.J, none of the feasible noise barriers under Alternative 2 were determined to be reasonable because the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeded the total reasonable allowance. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Similar to Alternative 2, the project as proposed under Alternative 3 is considered a Type 1 project because it would alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of Railroad Canyon Road, the I-15 on- and off- ramps at Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street, and add a new overcrossing at Franklin Street. Potential long-term noise associated with project operations under this alternative would be solely from traffic noise. Traffic noise impacts occur when either of the following occurs: (1) the traffic noise level at a sensitive receptor is predicted to approach or exceed the NAC, or (2) the predicted traffic noise level at a sensitive receptor is 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise level at that sensitive receptor. When traffic noise impacts occur, noise abatement measures must be considered. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-54 Table 2.16.J: Alternative 2 Summary of Abatement Information Noise Barrier No. Height (ft) Approximate Length (ft) Receptor Locations Benefited Noise Attenuation Range (dBA) Number of Benefitted Units1 Reasonable Allowance per Benefited Unit Total Reasonable Allowance Estimated Noise Barrier Construction Cost2 Reasonable? 2-2 163 200 R-54 5 2 $71,000 $142,000 --4 No 2-3 83 929 R-94 7 2 $71,000 $142,000 $800,000 No 10 929 R-91, R-94 5–8 4 $71,000 $248,000 $853,000 No 12 929 R-91, R-92, R-94, R-98 5–10 8 $71,000 $568,000 $909,000 No 14 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 5-11 10 $71,000 $710,000 $966,000 No 16 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 6-11 10 $71,000 $710,000 $1,027,000 No 2-3B 163 1,225 R-92, R-97, R-98, R-101 5-6 8 $71,000 $568,000 --4 No 2-4 10 1,305 R-158, R-160 5 2 $71,000 $142,000 --4 No 123 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 5–6 6 $71,000 $426,000 --4 No 14 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 5–7 6 $71,000 $426,000 $854,000 No Source: Noise Abatement Decision Report (December 2015). 1 Number of units that are attenuated 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier. 2 Noise barrier construction cost information provided by SC Engineering. 3 Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line-of-sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack. 4 Noise barrier height was determined to be not reasonable because the barrier would not achieve at least a noise level reduction of 7 dBA at one or more benefited receptors. dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = feet Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-55 Table 2.16.K provides the existing and future worst-case traffic noise level results for Alternative 3. Table 2.16.K: Alternative 3 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq(h)) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-1 Grape Street 64 66 66 2 R-2 Grape Street 57/371 58/381 58/581 1 R-3 Grape Street 552 562 562 1 R-4 Grape Street 56 58 58 2 R-5 Grape Street 55 57 57 2 R-6 Mesa Drive 612 622 622 1 R-7 Lakeview Terrace 602 612 612 1 R-8 Sylvester Road 622 632 632 1 R-9 Lakeview Terrace 63 64 64 1 R-10 Lakeview Terrace 61 62 62 1 R-11 Lakeview Terrace 61 62 62 1 R-12 Lakeview Terrace 62 63 63 1 R-13 Lakeview Terrace 63 64 64 1 R-14 Lakeview Terrace 61 62 62 1 R-15 Lakeview Terrace 62 63 63 1 R-16 Lakeview Terrace 63 64 65 2 R-17 Lakeview Terrace 673 67 68 1 R-18 Lakeview Terrace 63 65 65 2 R-19 Lakeview Terrace 65 66 66 1 R-20 Lakeview Terrace 58 59 59 1 R-21 Lakeview Terrace 59 60 60 1 R-22 Lakeview Terrace 61 62 62 1 R-23 Lakeview Terrace 63 64 64 1 R-24 Malaga Road 68 69 70 2 R-25 Casino Drive 54 55 55 1 R-26 Casino Drive 64 65 66 2 R-27 Casino Drive 62 64 64 2 R-28 Casino Drive 62 63 64 2 R-29 Casino Drive 56 58 58 2 R-30 Casino Drive 60 62 62 2 R-31 Mission Trail 59/391 61/411 61/411 2 R-32 Casino Drive 60 62 62 2 R-33 Vista Way 59 61 61 2 R-34 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-35 Vista Way 60 61 62 2 R-36 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-37 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-38 Vista Way 59 61 61 2 R-39 Vista Way 58 60 60 2 R-40 Vista Way 56 58 58 2 R-41 Vista Way 55 56 57 2 R-42 Boulder Road 60 61 61 1 R-43 Boulder Road 58 60 60 2 R-44 Boulder Road 56 57 57 1 R-45 Boulder Road 59 61 61 2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-56 Table 2.16.K: Alternative 3 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq(h)) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-46 Park Point 59 61 61 2 R-47 Park Point 61 63 63 2 R-48 Park Point 57 59 59 2 R-49 Park Point 57 58 58 1 R-50 Park Point 57 58 58 1 R-51 Oak Tree 61 62 63 2 R-52 Oak Tree 60 61 62 2 R-53 Oak Tree 58 59 59 1 R-54 Drexel Court 65 67 67 2 R-55 Drexel Court 64 65 66 2 R-56 Grape Street 58 59 59 1 R-57 Grape Street 59 61 60 1 R-58 Grape Street 71 74 73 2 R-59 Grape Street 66 68 67 1 R-60 Grape Street 68 70 69 1 R-61 Grape Street 62 66 64 2 R-62 Railroad Canyon Road 66 69 68 2 R-63 Casino Drive 65 67 --4 N/A R-64 Casino Drive 58 60 60 2 R-65 Casino Drive 57 59 59 2 R-66 Casino Drive 65 67 65 0 R-67 Diamond Drive 64 66 66 2 R-68 Mission Trail 58 59 60 2 R-69 Mission Trail 63 65 65 2 R-70 Mission Trail 64 66 66 2 R-71 Mission Trail 69 71 71 2 R-72 Diamond Drive 68 69 69 1 R-73 Diamond Drive 65/451 66/461 66/461 1 R-74 East Lakeshore Drive 66 68 68 2 R-75 Railroad Canyon Road 68 70 69 1 R-76 East Lakeshore Drive 65 67 67 2 R-77 Diamond Drive 67 69 68 1 R-78 Diamond Drive 60 62 62 2 R-79 Auto Center Drive 67 69 69 2 R-80 Auto Center Drive 64 65 66 2 R-81 Railroad Canyon Road 66 68 67 1 R-82 Summerhill Drive 67 70 68 1 R-83 Railroad Canyon Road 68 71 70 2 R-84 Railroad Canyon Road 72 74 74 2 R-85 Canyon Estates Drive 70 70 70 0 R-86 Canyon Estates Drive 69/445 70/455 71/465 2 R-87 Canyon Estates Drive 72 73 75 3 R-88 Canyon Estates Drive 68 69 70 2 R-89 Auto Center Drive 74 75 75 1 R-90 Auto Center Drive 73 73 76 3 R-91 Auto Center Drive 62 63 63 1 R-92 Auto Center Drive 64 65 65 1 R-93 Auto Center Drive 62 63 64 2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-57 Table 2.16.K: Alternative 3 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq(h)) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-94 Auto Center Drive 66 66 68 2 R-95 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-96 Auto Center Drive 60 61 61 1 R-97 Auto Center Drive 63 64 64 1 R-98 Auto Center Drive 61 62 63 2 R-99 Auto Center Drive 62 63 63 1 R-100 Auto Center Drive 54 55 55 1 R-101 Auto Center Drive 59 59 60 1 R-102 Auto Center Drive 58 59 59 1 R-103 Auto Center Drive 60 62 63 3 R-104 Auto Center Drive 55 56 57 2 R-105 Auto Center Drive 57 59 59 2 R-106 Auto Center Drive 65 66 67 2 R-107 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-108 Auto Center Drive 56 57 57 1 R-109 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-110 Auto Center Drive 58 60 62 4 R-111 Auto Center Drive 56 57 58 2 R-112 Auto Center Drive 60 62 64 4 R-113 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-114 Auto Center Drive 54 56 56 2 R-115 Auto Center Drive 53 55 55 2 R-116 Auto Center Drive 55 56 57 2 R-117 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-118 Auto Center Drive 60 62 64 4 R-119 Auto Center Drive 56 57 59 3 R-120 Auto Center Drive 59 61 63 4 R-121 Auto Center Drive 54 55 56 2 R-122 Auto Center Drive 56 58 60 4 R-123 Auto Center Drive 59 61 62 3 R-124 Auto Center Drive 59 61 62 3 R-125 Auto Center Drive 60 62 63 3 R-126 Auto Center Drive 53 55 55 2 R-127 Franklin Street 54 56 55 1 R-128 Avenue 6 48 49 48 0 R-129 Avenue 6 47 48 49 2 R-130 Avenue 6 47 49 50 3 R-131 Avenue 6 50 52 53 3 R-132 Stoney Creek Drive 63 64 65 2 R-133 Stoney Creek Drive 61 63 63 2 R-134 Stoney Creek Drive 62 63 63 1 R-135 Stoney Creek Drive 60 61 61 1 R-136 Stoney Creek Drive 53 55 55 2 R-137 Stoney Creek Drive 52 54 54 2 R-138 Sagecrest Drive 59 60 60 1 R-139 Sagecrest Drive 56 58 58 2 R-140 Sagecrest Drive 53 55 54 1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-58 Table 2.16.K: Alternative 3 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq(h)) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-141 Sagecrest Drive 52 53 53 1 R-142 Canyon View Drive 61 63 63 2 R-143 Canyon View Drive 60 61 61 1 R-144 Canyon View Drive 53 54 55 2 R-145 Canyon View Drive 52 53 52 0 R-146 Grunder Drive 60 61 61 1 R-147 Grunder Drive 63 64 63 0 R-148 Grunder Drive 64 63 63 -1 R-149 Grunder Drive 63 64 68 5 R-150 East Franklin Street 60 62 58 -2 R-151 East Franklin Street 60 61 55 -5 R-152 East Franklin Street 56 57 58 2 R-153 East Franklin Street 64 65 60 -4 R-154 Rupard Street 57 58 56 -1 R-155 Rupard Street 60 60 --4 N/A R-156 Flint Street 61 62 62 1 R-157 Adobe Street 63 63 63 0 R-158 East Hill Street 65 66 66 1 R-159 East Hill Street 64 65 66 2 R-160 Adobe Street 62 63 63 1 R-161 Adobe Street 61 62 62 1 R-162 East Hill Street 64 65 65 1 R-163 East Hill Street 61 62 63 2 R-164 Adobe Street 56 57 57 1 R-165 Adobe Street 56 56 56 0 R-166 Adobe Street 55 56 56 1 R-167 Adobe Street 57 58 58 1 R-168 East Hill Street 58 59 59 1 R-169 East Hill Street 61 62 64 3 R-170 East Hill Street 60 61 62 2 R-171 Granite Street 57 58 60 3 R-172 Granite Street 62 63 63 1 R-173 Lookout Drive 59 60 60 1 R-174 Lookout Drive 54 55 55 1 R-175 North Ellis Street 59 60 60 1 R-176 North Ellis Street 61 62 62 1 R-177 Granite Street 61 62 63 2 R-178 Granite Street 60 61 62 2 R-179 Lookout Drive 60 61 61 1 R-180 Lookout Drive 60 61 62 2 R-181 North Ellis Street 59 60 61 2 R-182 North Ellis Street 56 57 57 1 R-183 North Ellis Street 60 62 62 2 R-184 North Ellis Street 60 61 61 1 R-185 Minthorn Street 67 68 71 4 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-59 Table 2.16.K: Alternative 3 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq(h)) Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-186 Minthorn Street 66 67 73 7 R-187 Minthorn Street 73 75 75 2 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 2 The shaded area represents receptors located beyond the limits of construction under Alternative 3. Traffic noise impacts were not assessed for these receptors. 3 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 4 This receptor would be fully acquired by the project under Alternative 3. 5 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 9 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Of the modeled receptors, one of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C. The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC under Alternative 3 traffic conditions: Receptors R-17 and R-19: These receptor locations represent existing residences along Lakeview Terrace on the west side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road. Currently, there is an approximately 5 ft high earthen berm located along the edge of shoulder that partially shields these residences. NB No. 3-1 for Alternative 3, was modeled at the top of slope within the State right-of-way to shield these residences. Receptors R-54 and R-55: These receptor locations represent existing residences along Drexel Court on the east side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road. Currently there is an 8 ft high combination masonry block wall and Plexiglas barrier along the property line to shield these residences. Two noise barrier locations were considered to shield the impacted receptors. Under the first scenario, EW No. 5 was modeled at its current location at heights greater than the existing wall and renamed as NB No. 3-2, for Alternative 3, to shield these residences. Under the second scenario, NB No. 3-2B for Alternative 3, was modeled along the edge of road on the west side of Grape Street to shield these residences. Receptors R-94 and R-106: These receptor locations represent existing residences and the playground along Auto Center Drive on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street. Currently, there is a 3 to 6 ft high wall along the property line to shield the playground and residences. Two noise barrier locations were considered to shield the impacted receptors. Under the first scenario, a portion of EW No. 8 was evaluated with an increased height at its current location and renamed as NB No. 3-3 for Alternative 3, to shield these residences. Under the second scenario, a smaller section of Wall No. 8 (EW No. 8) was modeled at its current location at heights greater than the existing wall in addition to a new segment of barrier located along the west side of I-15 southbound. Both segments of the barrier were combined to be named NB No. 3-3B for Alternative 3, to shield these residences and the playground. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-60 Receptors R-158 and R-159: These receptor locations represent existing residences along East Hill Street on the west side of I-15 south of Main Street. Currently, there are no existing walls that shield these residences. One noise barrier for Alternative 3 (NB No. 3-4) was modeled along the edge of shoulder to shield these residences. Receptor R-185: This receptor location represents an existing residence along Minthorn Street on the east side of I-15 south of Main Street. Currently there are no existing walls that shield this residence. One noise barrier for Alternative 3 (NB No. 3-5) was modeled along the edge of shoulder to shield this residence. Under NEPA 23 CFR 772, the regulations contain NAC that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The noise level at these receptors is already approaching or exceeding the 67 dBA NAC. Approaching the NAC is defined as coming within 1 dBA of the NAC; therefore, noise abatement would need to be considered. Long-Term Interior Noise Impacts Similar to Alternative 2, the project area for Alternative 3 includes a church, school, and two medical facilities. To determine the attenuation provided by each of the buildings, simultaneous noise measurements were taken inside and outside a room at each building. The measured building attenuation was applied to the predicted future worst-case exterior level to obtain the predicted future interior noise level. According to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, interior noise levels under Activity Category D must not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq(h). Table 2.16.L identifies the predicted traffic noise levels for buildings in the project area under Alternative 3. Table 2.16.L: Alternative 3 Interior Noise Analysis Receptor No. Location Future Noise Levels, dBA Leq(h) 2040 Noise Level Exterior (dBA Leq) Interior (dBA Leq) Exterior to Interior Noise Level Reduction R-2 Church 58 381 20 R-31 School 61 411 20 R-73 Medical Facility 66 461 20 R-86 Medical Facility 71 462 25 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to- interior noise level reduction. 2 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to- interior noise level reduction. dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level Based on these projected traffic noise levels, interior noise levels at all buildings under Alternative 3 traffic conditions would not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, no noise abatement measures for these buildings are required. Noise Abatement Consideration Similar to Alternative 2, noise abatement measures, such as noise barriers, were considered to shield noise-sensitive receptors located along I-15 where sensitive receptors exist and would continue to be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC under Alternative 3. Noise barriers were analyzed for each of these sensitive receptors. At each location, 6 noise barrier heights were analyzed: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 ft. If noise barriers Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-61 would be located within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane, a 16 ft noise barrier height was not analyzed. The following barriers were analyzed to shield the sensitive receptor locations that would be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC under Alternative 3: NB No. 3-1: A 927 ft long barrier along the top of slope within the State right-of-way on the west side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road was analyzed to shield Receptors R-17 and R-19. NB No. 3-2: A 200 ft long barrier along the property line on the east side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road was analyzed to shield Receptors R-54 and R-55. NB No. 3-2B: As an alternative to NB No. 3-2, a 906 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the west side of Grape Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-54 and R-55. NB No. 3-3: A 929 ft long barrier along the property line on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-94 and R-106. NB No. 3-3B: As an alternative to NB No. 3-3, a two segment barrier that is 1,225 ft long combined on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-94 and R-106. NB No. 3-4: A 1,305 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the west side of I-15 south of Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-158 and R-159. NB No. 3-5: A 1,058 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the east side of I-15 south of Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptor R-185 Figure 2.16.3 shows the analyzed noise barriers for Alternative 3. The results of the noise barrier modeling are provided in Tables 2.16.M and 2.16.N. Noise Barrier Feasibility A minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA must be achieved at an impacted receptor for the noise abatement measure to be considered feasible. The feasibility criterion is not necessarily a noise abatement design goal. Greater noise reductions are encouraged if they can be reasonably achieved. Feasibility may also be restricted by the following factors: (1) topography, (2) access requirements for driveways and ramps, (3) the presence of local cross streets, (4) utility conflicts, (5) other noise sources in the area, and (6) safety considerations. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-62 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 1 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-64 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 2 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-66 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 3 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-68 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 4 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-70 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 5 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-72 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 6 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-74 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2010; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-3_ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt3.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.3 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 3 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 3 Proposed ROW Sheet 7 of 7 §¨¦15 34 67 5 2 1 Alternative 3S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-76This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-77Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-1 66 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-2 58/583 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-3 564 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-4 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-5 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-6 3-1 624 62 0 0 62 0 0 62 0 0 62 0 0 62 0 0 62 0 0 R-7 614 61 0 0 61 0 0 61 0 0 61 0 0 61 0 0 61 0 0 R-8 634 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-9 64 64 0 0 64 0 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 R-10 62 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 R-11 62 61 1 0 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 R-12 63 61 2 0 61 2 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 R-13 64 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 R-14 62 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 R-15 63 62 1 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 R-16 65 63 2 0 63 2 0 62 3 0 62 3 0 61 4 0 61 4 0 R-17 68 67 1 0 66 2 0 66 2 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 R-18 65 63 2 0 62 3 0 62 3 0 61 4 0 61 4 0 606 5 1 R-19 66 64 2 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 62 4 0 62 4 0 R-20 59 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-21 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-22 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-23 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-24 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-25 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-26 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-27 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-28 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-29 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-30 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-31 61/413 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-32 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-33 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-34 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-35 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-78 Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-36 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-37 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-38 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-39 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-40 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-41 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-42 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-43 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-44 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-45 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-46 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-47 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-48 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-49 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-50 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-51 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-52 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-53 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-54 3-2 67 --7 -- -- -- -- -- 65 2 0 65 2 0 63 4 0 628 5 2 R-55 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- 65 1 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 R-56 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-57 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-58 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-59 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-60 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-61 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-62 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-63 --11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-64 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-65 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-66 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-67 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-68 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-69 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-70 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-79Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-71 71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-72 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-73 66/463 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-74 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-75 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-76 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-77 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-78 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-79 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-80 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-81 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-82 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-83 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-84 74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-85 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-86 71/4610 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-87 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-88 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-89 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-90 76 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-91 3-3 63 63 0 0 60 3 0 58 5 2 56 7 2 56 7 2 55 8 2 R-92 65 65 0 0 63 2 0 62 3 0 61 4 0 60 5 2 59 6 2 R-93 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 59 5 2 58 6 2 R-94 68 64 4 0 61 7 2 60 8 2 58 10 2 57 11 2 57 11 2 R-95 59 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 R-96 61 61 0 0 60 1 0 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 58 3 0 R-97 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 R-98 63 63 0 0 61 2 0 59 4 0 57 6 2 57 6 2 56 7 2 R-99 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 R-100 55 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 R-101 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 56 4 0 R-102 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 57 2 0 R-103 63 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-104 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 R-105 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-80 Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-106 3-3 67 67 0 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 R-107 59 59 0 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 R-108 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 R-109 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-110 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-111 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-112 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-113 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-114 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-115 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-116 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-117 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-118 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-119 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-120 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-121 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-122 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-123 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-124 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-125 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-126 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-127 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-128 48 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-129 49 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-130 50 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-131 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-132 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-133 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-134 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-135 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-136 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-137 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-138 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-139 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-140 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-141 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-142 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-81Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-143 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-144 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-145 52 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-146 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-147 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-148 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-149 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-150 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-151 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-152 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-153 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-154 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-155 --9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-156 3-4 62 61 1 0 58 4 0 57 5 1 57 5 1 56 6 1 NP11 NP 0 R-157 63 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 58 5 1 57 6 1 NP NP 0 R-158 66 65 1 0 64 2 0 61 5 1 60 6 1 59 7 1 NP NP 0 R-159 66 64 2 0 64 2 0 62 4 0 61 5 1 60 6 1 NP NP 0 R-160 63 61 2 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 58 5 1 58 5 1 NP NP 0 R-161 62 61 1 0 59 3 0 58 4 0 58 4 0 57 5 1 NP NP 0 R-162 65 63 2 0 63 2 0 61 4 0 60 5 1 59 6 1 NP NP 0 R-163 63 62 1 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 NP NP 0 R-164 57 56 1 0 55 2 0 54 3 0 54 3 0 53 4 0 NP NP 0 R-165 56 56 0 0 54 2 0 53 3 0 53 3 0 53 3 0 NP NP 0 R-166 56 55 1 0 54 2 0 53 3 0 52 4 0 52 4 0 NP NP 0 R-167 58 57 1 0 55 3 0 54 4 0 54 4 0 54 4 0 NP NP 0 R-168 59 58 1 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 NP NP 0 R-169 64 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 NP NP 0 R-170 62 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 59 3 0 NP NP 0 R-171 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 NP NP 0 R-172 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-173 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-174 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-175 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-176 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-177 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-178 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-179 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-82 Table 2.16.M: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-180 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-181 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-182 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-183 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-184 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-185 3-5 71 70 1 0 70 1 0 70 1 0 68 3 0 68 3 0 NP NP 0 R-186 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-187 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 I.L.: Insertion Loss. 2 Either no barrier was analyzed at this location because the modeled receptor would not approach or exceed the NAC or this receptor would be acquired under this alternative. 3 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 4 The shaded area represents receptors located beyond the limits of construction under Alternative 3. Traffic noise impacts were not assessed for these receptors. 5 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 6 Although a noise level reduction of 5 dBA or more can be achieved, this noise barrier is not considered feasible because it does not attenuate noise levels by at least 5 dBA at the impacted receptor. 7 Shaded area represents the existing wall height. 8 Underlined noise levels have been attenuated by at least 5 dBA (i.e., feasible barrier height). 9 This receptor would be fully acquired by the project under Alternative 3. 10 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 11 NP = Not Permitted. Noise barriers within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane are not permitted to exceed 14 ft in height. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-83Table 2.16.N: Alternative 3 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-54 3-2B 672 66 1 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 65 2 0 65 2 0 NP3 NP 0 R-55 66 65 1 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 NP NP 0 R-91 3-3B 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 2 60 3 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 R-92 65 65 0 0 64 1 0 63 2 0 63 2 0 62 3 0 61 4 0 R-93 64 63 1 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 R-94 68 67 1 0 67 1 0 66 2 0 66 2 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 R-95 59 58 1 0 58 1 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 R-96 61 61 0 0 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 57 4 0 57 4 0 R-97 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 594 5 2 594 5 2 R-98 63 63 0 0 61 2 0 59 4 0 584 5 2 574 6 2 574 6 2 R-99 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 R-100 55 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 R-101 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 56 4 0 554 5 2 R-102 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-103 63 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-104 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 56 1 0 R-105 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-106 67 67 0 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 R-107 59 59 0 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 R-108 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 I.L.: Insertion Loss. 2 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 3 NP = Not Permitted. Noise barriers within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane are not permitted to exceed 14 ft in height. 4 Although a noise level reduction of 5 dBA or more can be achieved, this noise barrier is not considered feasible because it does not attenuate noise levels by at least 5 dBA at the impacted receptor. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier NBR = Number of Benefited Receptors Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-84 Of the seven modeled noise barriers evaluated under Alternative 3, three noise barriers were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more, as required to be considered feasible. NB Nos. 3-1, 3-2B, 3-3B, and 3-5 were determined to not be feasible because the barriers would not reduce noise levels by 5 dBA or more. Table 2.16.O lists all the feasible noise barriers for Alternative 3. Table 2.16.O: Alternative 3 Feasible Noise Barriers Noise Barrier No. Height (ft) Approximate Length (ft) Receptor Locations Benefited Number of Benefited Units1 3-2 162 200 R-54 2 3-3 82 929 R-94 2 10 929 R-91, R-94 4 12 929 R-91, R-94, R-98 6 14 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 10 16 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 10 3-4 10 1,305 R-156, R-158 2 122 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 6 14 1,305 R-156 to R-162 7 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Number of units that are attenuated by 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier. 2 Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line-of-sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack. ft = foot/feet Noise Barrier Reasonableness The reasonableness of a noise barrier was determined by comparing the estimated construction cost of the noise barrier against the total reasonable allowance. As identified in Table 2.16.P, the total reasonable allowance was determined based on the number of benefited residences multiplied by the reasonable allowance per residence. If the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeds the total reasonable allowance, the noise barrier is determined to be not reasonable. However, if the estimated noise barrier construction cost is within the total reasonable allowance, the noise barrier is determined to be reasonable. As indicated in Table 2.16.P, none of the feasible noise barriers were determined to be reasonable because the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeded the total reasonable allowance. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Similar to Alternative 2, the project as proposed under Alternative 4 is considered a Type 1 project because it would alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of Railroad Canyon Road, the I-15 on- and off- ramps at Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street, and add a new overcrossing at Franklin Street. Potential long-term noise associated with project operations under this alternative would be solely from traffic noise. Table 2.16.Q provides the existing and future worst-case traffic noise level results for Alternative 4. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-85Table 2.16.P: Alternative 3 Summary of Abatement Information Noise Barrier No. Height (ft) Approximate Length (ft) Receptor Locations Benefited Noise Attenuation Range (dBA) Number of Benefitted Units1 Reasonable Allowance per Benefited Unit Total Reasonable Allowance Estimated Noise Barrier Construction Cost2 Reasonable? 3-2 163 200 R-54 5 2 $71,000 $142,000 -- 4 No 3-3 83 929 R-94 7 2 $71,000 $142,000 $800,000 No 10 929 R-91, R-94 5–8 4 $71,000 $248,000 $853,000 No 12 929 R-91, R-94, R-98 6-10 6 $71,000 $426,000 $909,000 No 14 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 5-11 10 $71,000 $710,000 $966,000 No 16 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 6-11 10 $71,000 $710,000 $1,027,000 No 3-4 10 1,305 R-156, R-158 5 2 $71,000 $142,000 -- 4 No 123 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 5–6 6 $71,000 $426,000 -- 4 No 14 1,305 R-156 to R-162 5–7 7 $71,000 $497,000 $854,000 No Source: Noise Abatement Decision Report (December 2015). 1 Number of units that are attenuated 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier. 2 Noise barrier construction cost information provided by SC Engineering. 3 Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line-of-sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack. 4 Noise barrier height was determined to be not reasonable because the barrier would not achieve at least a noise level reduction of 7 dBA at one or more benefited receptors. dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-86 Table 2.16.Q: Alternative 4 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels, Leq(h) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-1 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-2 Grape Street 57/373 58/383 58/383 1 R-3 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-4 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-5 Grape Street --1 --1 --1 N/A R-6 Mesa Drive --1 --1 --1 N/A R-7 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-8 Sylvester Road --1 --1 --1 N/A R-9 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-10 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-11 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-12 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-13 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-14 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-15 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-16 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-17 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-18 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-19 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-20 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-21 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-22 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-23 Lakeview Terrace --1 --1 --1 N/A R-24 Malaga Road 68 69 70 2 R-25 Casino Drive 54 55 55 1 R-26 Casino Drive 64 65 66 2 R-27 Casino Drive 62 64 64 2 R-28 Casino Drive 62 63 63 1 R-29 Casino Drive 56 58 58 2 R-30 Casino Drive 60 62 61 1 R-31 Mission Trail 59/393 61/413 61/413 2 R-32 Casino Drive 60 62 61 1 R-33 Vista Way 59 61 61 2 R-34 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-35 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-36 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-37 Vista Way 60 61 61 1 R-38 Vista Way 59 61 61 2 R-39 Vista Way 58 60 60 2 R-40 Vista Way 56 58 58 2 R-41 Vista Way 55 56 56 1 R-42 Boulder Road 60 61 61 1 R-43 Boulder Road 58 60 60 2 R-44 Boulder Road 56 57 57 1 R-45 Boulder Road 59 61 61 2 R-46 Park Point 59 61 61 2 R-47 Park Point 61 63 63 2 R-48 Park Point 57 59 59 2 R-49 Park Point 57 58 58 1 R-50 Park Point 57 58 58 1 R-51 Oak Tree 61 62 63 2 R-52 Oak Tree 60 61 62 2 R-53 Oak Tree 58 59 59 1 R-54 Drexel Court 65 674 67 2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-87 Table 2.16.Q: Alternative 4 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels, Leq(h) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-55 Drexel Court 64 65 66 2 R-56 Grape Street 58 59 59 1 R-57 Grape Street 59 61 61 2 R-58 Grape Street 71 74 74 3 R-59 Grape Street 66 68 68 2 R-60 Grape Street 68 70 70 2 R-61 Grape Street 62 66 65 3 R-62 Railroad Canyon Road 66 69 69 3 R-63 Casino Drive 65 67 67 2 R-64 Casino Drive 58 60 60 2 R-65 Casino Drive 57 59 59 2 R-66 Casino Drive 65 67 67 2 R-67 Diamond Drive 64 66 66 2 R-68 Mission Trail 58 59 59 1 R-69 Mission Trail 63 65 64 1 R-70 Mission Trail 64 66 66 2 R-71 Mission Trail 69 71 71 2 R-72 Diamond Drive 68 69 69 1 R-73 Diamond Drive 65/452 66/462 66/462 1 R-74 East Lakeshore Drive 66 68 68 2 R-75 Railroad Canyon Road 68 70 69 1 R-76 East Lakeshore Drive 65 67 66 1 R-77 Diamond Drive 67 69 68 1 R-78 Diamond Drive 60 62 62 2 R-79 Auto Center Drive 67 69 69 2 R-80 Auto Center Drive 64 65 65 1 R-81 Railroad Canyon Road 66 68 66 0 R-82 Summerhill Drive 67 70 70 3 R-83 Railroad Canyon Road 68 71 70 2 R-84 Railroad Canyon Road 72 74 74 2 R-85 Canyon Estates Drive 70 70 70 0 R-86 Canyon Estates Drive 69/445 70/455 71/465 2 R-87 Canyon Estates Drive 72 73 75 3 R-88 Canyon Estates Drive 68 69 70 2 R-89 Auto Center Drive 74 75 76 2 R-90 Auto Center Drive 73 73 76 3 R-91 Auto Center Drive 62 63 63 1 R-92 Auto Center Drive 64 65 66 2 R-93 Auto Center Drive 62 63 64 2 R-94 Auto Center Drive 66 66 68 2 R-95 Auto Center Drive 57 58 58 1 R-96 Auto Center Drive 60 61 61 1 R-97 Auto Center Drive 63 64 64 1 R-98 Auto Center Drive 61 62 63 2 R-99 Auto Center Drive 62 63 63 1 R-100 Auto Center Drive 54 55 55 1 R-101 Auto Center Drive 59 59 60 1 R-102 Auto Center Drive 58 59 60 2 R-103 Auto Center Drive 60 62 63 3 R-104 Auto Center Drive 55 56 57 2 R-105 Auto Center Drive 57 59 59 2 R-106 Auto Center Drive 65 66 67 2 R-107 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-108 Auto Center Drive 56 57 57 1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-88 Table 2.16.Q: Alternative 4 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels, Leq(h) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-109 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-110 Auto Center Drive 58 60 62 4 R-111 Auto Center Drive 56 57 58 2 R-112 Auto Center Drive 60 62 64 4 R-113 Auto Center Drive 57 58 59 2 R-114 Auto Center Drive 54 56 56 2 R-115 Auto Center Drive 53 55 55 2 R-116 Auto Center Drive 55 56 57 2 R-117 Auto Center Drive 57 58 58 1 R-118 Auto Center Drive 60 62 64 4 R-119 Auto Center Drive 56 57 57 1 R-120 Auto Center Drive 59 61 63 4 R-121 Auto Center Drive 54 55 56 2 R-122 Auto Center Drive 56 58 60 4 R-123 Auto Center Drive 59 61 60 1 R-124 Auto Center Drive 59 61 60 1 R-125 Auto Center Drive 60 62 62 2 R-126 Auto Center Drive 53 55 55 2 R-127 Franklin Street 54 56 55 1 R-128 Avenue 6 48 49 48 0 R-129 Avenue 6 47 48 49 2 R-130 Avenue 6 47 49 50 3 R-131 Avenue 6 50 52 53 3 R-132 Stoney Creek Drive 63 64 65 2 R-133 Stoney Creek Drive 61 63 63 2 R-134 Stoney Creek Drive 62 63 63 1 R-135 Stoney Creek Drive 60 61 61 1 R-136 Stoney Creek Drive 53 55 55 2 R-137 Stoney Creek Drive 52 54 54 2 R-138 Sagecrest Drive 59 60 60 1 R-139 Sagecrest Drive 56 58 58 2 R-140 Sagecrest Drive 53 55 54 1 R-141 Sagecrest Drive 52 53 53 1 R-142 Canyon View Drive 61 63 63 2 R-143 Canyon View Drive 60 61 61 1 R-144 Canyon View Drive 53 54 55 2 R-145 Canyon View Drive 52 53 52 0 R-146 Grunder Drive 60 61 61 1 R-147 Grunder Drive 63 64 63 0 R-148 Grunder Drive 64 63 63 -1 R-149 Grunder Drive 63 64 66 3 R-150 East Franklin Street 60 62 58 -2 R-151 East Franklin Street 60 61 55 -5 R-152 East Franklin Street 56 57 58 2 R-153 East Franklin Street 64 65 60 -4 R-154 Rupard Street 57 58 56 -1 R-155 Rupard Street 60 60 --6 N/A R-156 Flint Street 61 62 62 1 R-157 Adobe Street 63 63 63 0 R-158 East Hill Street 65 66 66 1 R-159 East Hill Street 64 65 67 3 R-160 Adobe Street 62 63 63 1 R-161 Adobe Street 61 62 62 1 R-162 East Hill Street 64 65 65 1 R-163 East Hill Street 61 62 63 2 R-164 Adobe Street 56 57 57 1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-89 Table 2.16.Q: Alternative 4 Predicted Future Noise Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. Location Existing Noise Level dBA Leq(h) Future Noise Levels, Leq(h) 2040 Noise Level No Build Build Build Minus Existing Conditions R-165 Adobe Street 56 56 56 0 R-166 Adobe Street 55 56 56 1 R-167 Adobe Street 57 58 58 1 R-168 East Hill Street 58 59 59 1 R-169 East Hill Street 61 62 64 3 R-170 East Hill Street 60 61 62 2 R-171 Granite Street 57 58 60 3 R-172 Granite Street 62 63 63 1 R-173 Lookout Drive 59 60 60 1 R-174 Lookout Drive 54 55 55 1 R-175 North Ellis Street 59 60 60 1 R-176 North Ellis Street 61 62 62 1 R-177 Granite Street 61 62 63 2 R-178 Granite Street 60 61 62 2 R-179 Lookout Drive 60 61 61 1 R-180 Lookout Drive 60 61 61 1 R-181 North Ellis Street 59 60 61 2 R-182 North Ellis Street 56 57 57 1 R-183 North Ellis Street 60 62 62 2 R-184 North Ellis Street 60 61 61 1 R-185 Minthorn Street 67 68 71 4 R-186 Minthorn Street 66 67 73 7 R-187 Minthorn Street 73 75 75 2 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Noise levels for this receptor are not shown because it is located beyond the limits of construction under Alternative 4. 2 Either no barrier was analyzed at this location because the modeled receptor would not approach or exceed the NAC or this receptor would be acquired under this alternative. 3 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 4 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 5 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 6 This receptor would be fully acquired by the project under Alternative 4. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 8 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Of the modeled receptors, one of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C. The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC under Alternative 4 traffic conditions: Receptors R-54 and R-55: These receptor locations represent existing residences along Drexel Court on the east side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road. Currently there is an 8 ft high combination masonry block wall and Plexiglas barrier along the property line to shield these residences. Two noise barrier locations were considered to shield the impacted receptors. Under the first scenario, EW No. 5 was modeled at its current location at heights greater than the existing wall and renamed as NB No. 4-2, for Alternative 4, to shield these residences. Under the second scenario, NB No. 4-2B for Alternative 4, was modeled along the edge of road on the west side of Grape Street to shield these residences. Receptors R-92, R-94 and R-106: These receptor locations represent existing residences and the playground along Auto Center Drive on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-90 Canyon Road and Main Street. Currently, there is a 3 to 6 ft high wall along the property line to shield the playground and residences. Two noise barrier locations were considered to shield the impacted receptors. Under the first scenario, a portion of EW No. 8 was evaluated with an increased height at its current location and renamed as NB No. 4-3 for Alternative 4, to shield these residences. Under the second scenario, a smaller section of EW No. 8 was modeled at its current location at heights greater than the existing wall in addition to a new segment of barrier located along the west side of I-15 southbound. Both segments of the barrier were combined to be named NB No. 4-3B for Alternative 4, to shield these residences and the playground. Receptors R-158 and R-159: These receptor locations represent existing residences along East Hill Street on the west side of I-15 south of Main Street. Currently, there are no existing walls that shield these residences. One noise barrier for Alternative 4 (NB No. 4-4) was modeled along the edge of shoulder to shield these residences. Receptor R-185: This receptor location represents an existing residence along Minthorn Street on the east side of I-15 south of Main Street. Currently there are no existing walls that shield this residence. One noise barrier for Alternative 4 (NB No. 4-5) was modeled along the edge of shoulder to shield this residence. Long-Term Interior Noise Impacts Similar to Alternative 2, the project area for Alternative 4 includes a church, school, and two medical facilities. To determine the attenuation provided by each of the buildings, simultaneous noise measurements were taken inside and outside a room at each building. The measured building attenuation was applied to the predicted future worst-case exterior level to obtain the predicted future interior noise level. According to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, interior noise levels under Activity Category D must not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq(h). Table 2.16.R identifies the predicted traffic noise levels for buildings in the project area under Alternative 4. Table 2.16.R: Alternative 4 Interior Noise Analysis Receptor No. Location Future Noise Levels, (dBA Leq) 2040 Noise Level Exterior (dBA Leq) Interior (dBA Leq) Exterior to Interior Noise Level Reduction R-2 Church 58 381 20 R-31 School 61 411 20 R-73 Medical Facility 66 462 20 R-86 Medical Facility 71 463 25 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 2 Either no barrier was analyzed at this location because the modeled receptor would not approach or exceed the NAC or this receptor would be acquired under this alternative. 3 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Based on these projected traffic noise levels, interior noise levels at all buildings under Alternative 4 traffic conditions would not approach or exceed 52 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, no noise abatement measures for these buildings are required. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-91 Noise Abatement Consideration Similar to Alternative 2, noise abatement measures, such as noise barriers, were considered to shield noise-sensitive receptors located along I-15 where sensitive receptors exist and would continue to be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC under Alternative 4. Noise barriers were analyzed for each of these sensitive receptors. At each location, 6 noise barrier heights were analyzed: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 ft. If noise barriers would be located within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane, a 16 ft noise barrier height was not analyzed. The following barriers were analyzed to shield the sensitive receptor locations that would be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC under Alternative 4: NB No. 4-2: A 200 ft long barrier along the property line on the east side of I-15 south of Railroad Canyon Road was analyzed to shield Receptors R-54 and R-55. NB No. 4-2B: As an alternative to NB No. 4-2, a 906 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the west side of Grape Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-54 and R-55. NB No. 4-3: A 929 ft long barrier along the property line on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-92, R-94, and R-106. NB No. 4-3B: As an alternative to NB No. 4-3, a two-segment barrier that is 1,225 ft long combined on the west side of I-15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-92, R-94, and R-106. NB No. 4-4: A 1,305 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the west side of I-15 south of Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptors R-158 and R-159. NB No. 4-5: A 1,058 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on the east side of I-15 south of Main Street was analyzed to shield Receptor R-185. Figure 2.16.4 shows the analyzed noise barriers for Alternative 4. The results of the noise barrier modeling are provided in Tables 2.16.S and 2.16.T. Noise Barrier Feasibility A minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA must be achieved at an impacted receptor for the noise abatement measure to be considered feasible. The feasibility criterion is not necessarily a noise abatement design goal. Greater noise reductions are encouraged if they can be reasonably achieved. Feasibility may also be restricted by the following factors: (1) topography, (2) access requirements for driveways and ramps, (3) the presence of local cross streets, (4) utility conflicts, (5) other noise sources in the area, and (6) safety considerations. Of the six modeled noise barriers evaluated under Alternative 4, four noise barriers were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more, as required to be considered feasible. NB Nos. 4-2B and 4-5 were determined to not be feasible because the barrier would not reduce noise levels by 5 dBA or more. Table 2.16.U lists all the feasible noise barriers for Alternative 4. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-92 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 1 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-94 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 2 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-96 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 3 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-98 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 4 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-100 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 5 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-102 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 6 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-104 This page intentionally left blank SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; SC Engineering, 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\Fig2-16-4 _ModNoiseBarrier_ReceptorLoc_Alt4.mxd (6/23/2017) FIGURE 2.16.4 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment Modeled Noise Barrier and Modeled Receptor Locations 0 100 200 FEET !Modeled Receptor Locations Existing Walls Noise Barriers Alternative 4 Layout Main St and Franklin St Layout Existing City ROW Existing Caltrans ROW Alternative 4 Proposed ROW Sheet 7 of 7 §¨¦15 3 4 67 5 2 1 Alternative 4S!!NS!!N Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-106This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-107Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-1 --2 --3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-2 58/384 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-3 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-4 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-5 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-6 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-7 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-8 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-9 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-10 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-11 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-12 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-13 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-14 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-15 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-16 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-17 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-18 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-19 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-20 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-21 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-22 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-23 --2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-24 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-25 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-26 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-27 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-28 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-29 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-30 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-31 61/414 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-32 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-33 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-34 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-108 Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-35 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-36 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-37 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-38 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-39 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-40 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-41 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-42 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-43 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-44 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-45 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-46 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-47 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-48 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-49 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-50 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-51 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-52 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-53 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-54 4-2 67 --7 -- -- -- -- -- 65 2 0 65 2 0 63 4 0 628 5 2 R-55 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- 64 2 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 R-56 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-57 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-58 74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-59 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-60 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-61 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-62 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-63 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-64 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-65 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-66 67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-67 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-68 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-109Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-69 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-70 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-71 71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-72 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-73 66/463 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-74 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-75 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-76 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-77 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-78 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-79 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-80 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-81 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-82 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-83 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-84 74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-85 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-86 71/469 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-87 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-88 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-89 76 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-90 76 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-91 4-3 63 63 0 0 60 3 0 58 5 2 56 7 2 56 7 2 55 8 2 R-92 66 66 0 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 61 5 2 60 6 2 59 7 2 R-93 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 59 5 2 58 6 2 R-94 68 64 4 0 61 7 2 60 8 2 58 10 2 57 11 2 57 11 2 R-95 58 58 0 0 58 0 0 58 0 0 57 1 0 57 1 0 57 1 0 R-96 61 61 0 0 60 1 0 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 58 3 0 R-97 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0 R-98 63 63 0 0 60 3 0 58 5 2 57 6 2 56 7 2 56 7 2 R-99 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 R-100 55 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 R-101 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 56 4 0 R-102 60 59 1 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 58 2 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-110 Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-103 4-3 63 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-104 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 R-105 59 59 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-106 67 67 0 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 R-107 59 59 0 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 R-108 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 56 1 0 56 1 0 R-109 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-110 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-111 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-112 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-113 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-114 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-115 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-116 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-117 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-118 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-119 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-120 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-121 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-122 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-123 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-124 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-125 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-126 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-127 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-128 48 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-129 49 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-130 50 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-131 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-132 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-133 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-134 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-135 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-136 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-111Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-137 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-138 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-139 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-140 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-141 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-142 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-143 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-144 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-145 52 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-146 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-147 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-148 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-149 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-150 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-151 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-152 58 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-153 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-154 56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-155 --10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-156 4-4 62 61 1 0 59 3 0 58 4 0 57 5 1 57 5 1 NP11 NP 0 R-157 63 63 0 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 58 5 1 58 5 1 NP NP 0 R-158 66 64 2 0 64 2 0 61 5 1 60 6 1 60 6 1 NP NP 0 R-159 67 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 61 6 1 60 7 1 NP NP 0 R-160 63 62 1 0 59 4 0 58 5 1 58 5 1 57 6 1 NP NP 0 R-161 62 61 1 0 59 3 0 59 3 0 58 4 0 58 4 0 NP NP 0 R-162 65 63 2 0 63 2 0 61 4 0 60 5 1 60 5 1 NP NP 0 R-163 63 62 1 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 NP NP 0 R-164 57 57 0 0 56 1 0 55 2 0 55 2 0 55 2 0 NP NP 0 R-165 56 56 0 0 56 0 0 55 1 0 54 2 0 54 2 0 NP NP 0 R-166 56 55 1 0 55 1 0 54 2 0 54 2 0 54 2 0 NP NP 0 R-167 58 57 1 0 56 2 0 55 3 0 54 4 0 54 4 0 NP NP 0 R-168 59 58 1 0 58 1 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 NP NP 0 R-169 64 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 NP NP 0 R-170 62 61 1 0 61 1 0 60 2 0 60 2 0 59 3 0 NP NP 0 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-112 Table 2.16.S: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-171 4-4 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 NP NP 0 R-172 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-173 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-174 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-175 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-176 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-177 63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-178 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-179 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-180 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-181 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-182 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-183 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-184 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-185 4-5 71 70 1 0 70 1 0 69 2 0 68 3 0 67 4 0 NP NP 0 R-186 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R-187 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 I.L.: Insertion Loss. 2 Noise levels for this receptor are not shown because it is located beyond the limits of construction under Alternative 4. 3 Either no barrier was analyzed at this location because the modeled receptor would not approach or exceed the NAC or this receptor would be acquired under this alternative. 4 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 5 There are no outdoor frequent human use areas associated with this land use. 6 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 7 Shaded area represents the existing wall height. 8 Underlined noise levels have been attenuated by at least 5 dBA (i.e., feasible barrier height). 9 Exterior/interior noise level. The interior noise level was determined using a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. 10 This receptor would be fully acquired by the project under Alternative 4. 11 NP = Not Permitted. Noise barriers within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane are not permitted to exceed 14 ft in height. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier NBR = Number of Benefited Receptors Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-113Table 2.16.T: Alternative 4 Noise Barrier Analysis (dBA Leq) Receptor No. NB No. Future Noise Levels (dBA Leq(h)) 2040 Noise Level Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier I.L., and NBR 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft Build Leq(h) I.L.1 NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR Leq(h) I.L. NBR R-54 4-2B 67 66 1 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 65 2 0 65 2 0 NP3 NP 0 R-55 66 65 1 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 NP NP 0 R-91 4-3B 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 2 60 3 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 R-92 66 65 1 0 64 2 0 63 3 0 63 3 0 62 4 0 614 5 2 R-93 64 63 1 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 R-94 68 67 1 0 66 2 0 66 2 0 66 2 0 65 3 0 65 3 0 R-95 58 58 0 0 58 0 0 57 1 0 57 1 0 57 1 0 56 2 0 R-96 61 61 0 0 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 57 4 0 57 4 0 R-97 64 64 0 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 595 5 2 59 5 2 R-98 63 63 0 0 61 2 0 59 4 0 585 5 2 575 6 2 57 6 2 R-99 63 63 0 0 62 1 0 61 2 0 60 3 0 59 4 0 59 4 0 R-100 55 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 54 1 0 R-101 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 57 3 0 56 4 0 55 5 2 R-102 60 60 0 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 59 1 0 58 2 0 58 2 0 R-103 63 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 R-104 57 57 0 057 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 56 1 0 R-105 59 59 0 059 0 0 59 0 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 58 1 0 R-106 67 67 0 0 66 1 0 65 2 0 64 3 0 63 4 0 63 4 0 R-107 59 59 0 0 57 2 0 56 3 0 56 3 0 55 4 0 55 4 0 R-108 57 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 56 1 0 56 1 0 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 I.L.: Insertion Loss. 2 Numbers in bold represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. 3 NP = Not Permitted. Noise barriers within 15 ft of the nearest travel lane are not permitted to exceed 14 ft in height. 4 Underlined noise levels have been attenuated by at least 5 dBA (i.e., feasible barrier height). 5 Although a noise level reduction of 5 dBA or more can be achieved, this noise barrier is not considered feasible because it does not attenuate noise levels by at least 5 dBA at the impacted receptor. dB = decibels dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet Leq(h) =1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level NAC = Noise Abatement Criteria NB = Noise Barrier NBR = Number of Benefited Receptors Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-114 Table 2.16.U: Alternative 4 Feasible Noise Barriers Noise Barrier No. Height (ft) Approximate Length (ft) Receptor Locations Benefited Number of Benefited Units1 4-2 162 200 R-54 2 4-3 82 929 R-94 2 10 929 R-91, R-94, R-98 6 12 929 R-91, R-92, R-94, R-98 8 14 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 10 16 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 10 4-3B 162 1,225 R-92, R-97, R-98, R-101 8 4-4 10 1,305 R-158–R-160 2 122 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 6 14 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 6 Source: Noise Study Report (August 2015). 1 Number of units that are attenuated 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier. 2 Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line-of-sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack. ft = foot/feet Noise Barrier Reasonableness The reasonableness of a noise barrier was determined by comparing the estimated construction cost of the noise barrier against the total reasonable allowance. As identified in Table 2.16.V, the total reasonable allowance was determined based on the number of benefited residences multiplied by the reasonable allowance per residence. If the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeds the total reasonable allowance, the noise barrier is determined to be not reasonable. However, if the estimated noise barrier construction cost is within the total reasonable allowance, the noise barrier is determined to be reasonable. As indicated in Table 2.16.V, none of the feasible noise barriers were determined to be reasonable because the estimated noise barrier construction cost exceeded the total reasonable allowance. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-115Table 2.16.V: Alternative 4 Summary of Abatement Information Noise Barrier No. Height (ft) Approximate Length (ft) Receptor Locations Benefited Noise Attenuation Range (dBA) Number of Benefitted Units1 Reasonable Allowance per Benefited Units Total Reasonable Allowance Estimated Noise Barrier Construction Cost2 Reasonable? 4-2 163 200 R-54 5 2 $71,000 $142,000 --4 No 4-3 83 929 R-94 7 2 $71,000 $142,000 $800,000 No 10 929 R-91, R-94 5–8 6 $71,000 $248,000 $853,000 No 12 929 R-91, R-92, R-94, R-98 5–10 8 $71,000 $568,000 $909,000 No 14 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 5-11 10 $71,000 $710,000 $966,000 No 16 929 R-91 to R-94, R-98 6-11 10 $71,000 $710,000 $1,027,000 No 4-3B 163 1,225 R-92, R-97, R-98, R-101 5-6 8 $71,000 $568,000 --4 No 4-4 10 1,305 R-158, R-160 5 2 $71,000 $142,000 --4 No 123 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 5–6 6 $71,000 $426,000 --4 No 14 1,305 R-156 to R-160, R-162 5–7 6 $71,000 $426,000 $854,000 No Source: Noise Abatement Decision Report (December 2015). 1 Number of units that are attenuated 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier. 2 Noise barrier construction cost information provided by SC Engineering. 3 Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line-of-sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack. 4 Noise barrier height was determined to be not reasonable because the barrier would not achieve at least a noise level reduction of 7 dBA at one or more benefited receptors. dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = feet Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-116 CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: XII. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Surrounding land uses in the project vicinity include residential, commercial, hotels, a church, light industrial, and vacant land. In accordance with Caltrans’ Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (May 2011), a noise impact occurs when the future noise level with the project results in a substantial increase in noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more increase) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria (NAC). Approaching the NAC is defined as coming within 1 dBA of the NAC. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during project construction. The first short- term noise impact would be generated by construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to and from the project site. These activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the project 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. The projected construction traffic will be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on I-15, Railroad Canyon Road, Franklin Street, Main Street, and other affected streets, and its associated long-term noise level change will not be perceptible. Therefore, short-term, construction-related worker commutes and equipment transport noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and roadway construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Typical noise levels at 50 feet from an active construction area range up to 88 dBA Lmax during the noisiest construction phases. Construction of the project is expected to require the use of earthmovers, bulldozers, water trucks, and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated between 55 and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the grading phase. The worst-case composite noise level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. The closest sensitive receptors are located within 50 feet of the project construction area. Therefore, these receptor locations may be subject to short-term noise higher than the 88 dBA Lmax generated by construction activities along the project alignment. Implementation of Minimization Measures N-1 and N-2, which are standard conditions presented below in Section 2.16.4, would minimize the potential short-term noise impacts during project construction and ensure impacts remain less than significant. Future traffic noise levels at all receptor locations were determined with existing walls using the worst-case traffic operations (prior to speed degradation). Traffic noise was evaluated under existing conditions, design year no build conditions (future no build), and design year conditions with the project. Under the future with project conditions, of the modeled receptors, 9 receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under which has an exterior NAC of 67 dBA Leq. Of the modeled receptors, one of the sensitive receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Category C, which has an exterior NAC of 67 dBA Leq. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-117 Several receptors would experience at least a 3 dBA increase in noise levels. A 3 dBA change is the lowest level that is barely perceptible by the average human ear in an outdoor environment. Under CEQA, a comparison is made between the baseline noise level and the build noise level. Because the project setting is urbanized, and because of the proximity of the receptors to the highway, the magnitude of the noise increase from the project is not considered substantial and would not result in a significant noise impact under CEQA; therefore, no mitigation is required. XII. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernable but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building. Building damage from ground vibration is not a factor for normal transportation sources, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with groundborne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet from the vibration source. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible. Streets surrounding the project site are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on-road vehicles would make it unusual for on-road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. No such vehicular vibration impacts would occur, resulting in a less than significant impact. XII. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to CEQA Response a) above. XII. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to CEQA Response a) above. XII. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. According to the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan, there are no public use airports in the City. The closest public use airport to the project site is the March Air Reserve Base, which is 14 miles northeast of the project site. Due to the distance of this airport from the project, implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of people working in the project area to excessive noise. No mitigation is required. XII. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.16-118 No Impact. The project is located 1.5 miles to the north and northeast of Skylark Field, a private air facility utilized for skydiving (Skydive Elsinore). The airport houses 21 single-engine aircraft, five multi-engine aircraft, and four gliders. The Skylark Field is utilized for skydiving and other recreational air uses. People working and residing in the project area are already exposed to noise coming from Skylark Field in addition to noise generated from motorists traveling along I-15 and local roadways. Implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to increased noise levels from Skylark Field. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. 2.16.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Abatement Measures The following measures are required to minimize potential construction noise impacts: Minimization Measures N-1 Construction activities occurring within the State right-of-way, the control of noise from construction activities, shall conform to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02, “Noise Control,” and the Standard Special Provisions 14-8.02, “Noise Control.” The noise level from the Contractor’s operations, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., shall not exceed 86 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 50 feet (ft). The Contractor shall use an alternative warning method instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws. In addition, the Contractor shall equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturer-recommended muffler and shall not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate muffler. N-2 During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction within the City of Lake Elsinore (City) right-of-way, in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the City shall require the Construction Contractor to limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. If construction is needed outside of those hours or days, the City shall require the Construction Contractor to coordinate with the City. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-1 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.17 Natural Communities This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. The emphasis of the section should be on the ecological function of the natural communities within the area. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value. Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed below in the Threatened and Endangered Species, Section 2.21. 2.17.1 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Natural Environment Study (August 2017) Update to the Natural Environment Study Memorandum (January 2015) Wetlands Delineation and Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters Report (August 2017) 2.17.1.1 Soils According to Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California (United States Department of Agriculture 1980), there are multiple soils within the project study area. Soils present within the project study area are summarized in Table 2.17.A. 2.17.1.2 Vegetation The study area that is assessed for biological resources is referred to as the Biological Study Area (BSA). Vegetation within the BSA has been affected by the existing Interstate 15 (I-15) infrastructure, paved and dirt roadways, residential and commercial development, off-road vehicle use, and disking practices. Aside from developed areas, the BSA contains six vegetation communities: disturbed/ruderal, disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS), southern willow scrub, willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and ornamental. The dominant vegetation community within the BSA is disturbed/ruderal. Ruderal vegetation persists around fencing, buildings, vacant lots, and drainages. Dominant vegetation in these areas includes California aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub is primarily present north and south of Grunder Drive, and along the margins and slopes of the I-15. This plant community is composed predominantly of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Other species present include California sage (Artemesia californica) and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). This community also contained predominant understory of ruderal plant species identified above. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-2 Table 2.17.A: Soils Present within the BSA Soil Type Percentage Slope AIC Arbuckle gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes AID Arbuckle gravelly loam 8 to 15 percent slopes AIE Arbuckle gravelly loam 15 to 25 percent slopes CaD2 Cajalco fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes CbF2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes ChF2 Cieneba sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes CkF2 Cieneba rocky sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes CnC Cortina gravelly coarse sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes GdC Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes GdD2 Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes GyA Greenfield sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes GyD2 Greenfield sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes GyE2 Greenfield sandy loam 15 to 25 percent slopes HcC Hanford coarse sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes HcD2 Hanford coarse sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes HdD2 Hanford cobbly coarse sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes HnC Honcut sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes HnD2 Honcut sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes HoE Honcut cobbly sandy loam 2 to 25 percent slopes LaD2 Las Posas loam 8 to 15 percent slopes LkF3 Las Posas rocky loam 15 to 50 percent slopes LpF2 Lodo rocky loam 25 to 50 percent slopes MnD2 Monserate sandy loam RaC2 Ramona sandy loam 5 to 8 percent slopes SsD Soboba stony loamy sand 2 to 15 percent slopes TeG Terrace escarpments None VsD2 Vista coarse sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes VsF2 Vista coarse sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes YbD2 Yokohl loam 8 to 15 percent slopes YsE2 Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam 8 to 25 percent slopes YsE3 Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam 8 to 25 percent slopes Source: Natural Environment Study (August 2017) BSA = Biological Study Area Southern willow scrub is present within the banks of the San Jacinto River. Vegetation in these areas is composed mainly of Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), emergent Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Primary subdominant plant species identified include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), Emory’s baccharis (Baccharis emoryi), and rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). A small patch of disturbed willow scrub is located within a concrete-lined drainage channel at the I-15, along the Main Street southbound off-ramp. Vegetation in this area is composed primarily of emergent Goodding’s willow. Other vegetation noted includes mule fat and Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-3 Mediterranean tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). A few individual mature Goodding’s willows are also present within Drainage D4. Willow scrub is present within the banks of the San Jacinto River and is dominated by mule fat. Mule fat scrub is also present within a concrete-lined drainage channel east of I-15, along the Railroad Canyon Road northbound on-ramp. This drainage channel is tributary to the San Jacinto River and dominant vegetation within this area includes mule fat, cattail (Typha sp.), Mediterranean tamarisk, and Goodding’s willow. Ornamental vegetation is present primarily within the northwestern portion of the BSA along the margins of the I-15 and at the I-15/Main Street interchange. Dominant species identified include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), pepper tree (Schinus sp.), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). 2.17.1.3 Wildlife Corridors Much of the habitat within the BSA has been fragmented by existing residential, commercial, and infrastructure development. I-15 is a regional barrier to east and west wildlife movement through the BSA and surrounding areas. The San Jacinto River, where it passes under the I-15 within the BSA, likely provides for some level of regional wildlife movement. No direct effects to the San Jacinto River would occur as a result of the project. The project would not affect any wildlife movement corridors in the vicinity. 2.17.1.4 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Plans Habitat Conservation Plans are prepared pursuant to Section 10[a][1][b] of the Federal Endangered Species Act in order to conserve habitat and receive incidental take1 permits for take of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species. The State process of issuing an incidental take2 permit under the California Endangered Species Act can complement the Federal Habitat Conservation Plan process and may include the same or similar species, depending on their status. As provided in Section 2835 of the Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may permit the take, of any identified species whose conservation and management is provided for in a CDFW-approved Natural Communities Conservation Plan. A Natural Communities Conservation Plan identifies and provides for the regional or areawide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Sections 2081(b) and 2081(c) of the California Endangered Species Act allow the CDFW to issue an incidental take permit for State listed threatened and endangered species. Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Plans that are applicable to the project are the western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP The Western Riverside County MSHCP serves as a comprehensive, multijurisdictional MSHCP and Natural Communities Conservation Plan, and focuses on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The Western Riverside County MSHCP allows its permittees to better control local land use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate in the region while adhering to the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act 1 “Take” is defined under Federal Endangered Species Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 2 “Take” is defined by the California Fish and Game Code as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or to attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-4 and the California Endangered Species Act. The Western Riverside County MSHCP allows participating jurisdictions to authorize the “take” of plant and animal species identified in the Western Riverside County MSHCP and found within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area. Regulation of the “take” of threatened, endangered, and rare species is authorized by the wildlife agencies (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and CDFW). The wildlife agencies allow “Take Authorization” for otherwise lawful actions (e.g., public and private development) in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area. The Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles) and includes all unincorporated land in Riverside County west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area covers multiple species and habitats within a diverse landscape, from urban centers to undeveloped foothills and montane forests,1 all under multiple jurisdictions. The Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area also extends across many bioregions as well, including the Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, San Jacinto Mountains, Agua Tibia Mountains, Desert Transition, and San Bernardino Mountains. The goal of the Western Riverside County MSHCP is to provide a coordinated conservation area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life. The Conservation Area is assembled from portions of the western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area, which consists of one-quarter-section (i.e., approximately 160 acres) cells, each with specific criteria for conservation requirements. As permittees under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are obligated to implement specific conditions, as described in Sections 13.2 and 13.8 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Implementation Agreement respectively, and to abide by the Section 10(a)(1) permit conditions. Such requirements include: (1) compliance with the policies for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (2) compliance with the policies for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (3) compliance with surveys to be conducted as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (4) compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; and (5) compliance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the siting and design criteria as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE STEPHENS’ KANGAROO RAT The Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) conducted biological studies and produced a document titled Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (March 1996). The Habitat Conservation Plan was submitted to the resource agencies to obtain a “take” permit that would be valid for 30 years, authorizing incidental take of Stephens’ kangaroo rat within the Plan area pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Habitat Conservation Plan covers 533,954 acres within RCHCA member 1 Mountain forests: montane forest begins at about 1,500–2,000 feet and transitions into subalpine forests at about 4,000 feet. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-5 jurisdictions, including approximately 30,000 acres of occupied Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat. The RCHCA established a regional system of seven core areas comprising public and private lands for conservation of Stephens’ kangaroo rat. The core Stephens’ kangaroo rat areas include Motte Rimrock, Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, San Jacinto-Lake Perris, Sycamore Canyon-March Air Reserve Base, Steele Peak, and Potrero Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). These core Stephens’ kangaroo rat areas will contribute to the conservation of covered species under the western Riverside County MSHCP. 2.17.2 Environmental Consequences 2.17.2.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction and modification of the existing freeway and local street structures. Therefore, the project would not result in any adverse temporary impacts to natural communities in the BSA. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. Therefore, all impacts are considered permanent for purposes of this analysis and based on the project design. Therefore, there are no temporary impacts to natural communities associated with Alternative 2. Permanent impacts are discussed below. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. Therefore, all impacts are considered permanent for purposes of this analysis and based on the project design. Therefore, there are no temporary impacts to natural communities associated with Alternative 3. Permanent impacts are discussed below. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. Therefore, all impacts are considered permanent for purposes of this analysis and based on the project design. Therefore, there are no temporary impacts to natural communities associated with Alternative 4. Permanent impacts are discussed below. 2.17.2.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result in any adverse permanent impacts to natural communities in the BSA. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET The majority of the BSA is considered to be highly disturbed and dominated by ruderal and ornamental species. The project would not affect southern willow scrub, a natural community of concern. In addition, the project would not substantially affect the willow scrub/mature individual willows and mule fat scrub communities. The project would not have substantial adverse effects to disturbed/ruderal, disturbed Riversidean sage scrub, mule fat scrub, and ornamental communities within the BSA as these communities are disturbed by existing development and the impacts to these communities are relatively small. Given the highly disturbed nature of the site, effects to natural communities are not considered adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-6 ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would have the same impacts as identified for Alternative 2. The project would not adversely affect natural communities of concern. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would have the same impacts as identified for Alternative 2. The project would not adversely affect natural communities of concern CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: IV. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Wildlife movement includes seasonal migration along corridors, as well as daily movements for foraging and reaching water sources. Migrational corridors may include areas of unobstructed movement for deer, riparian corridors providing cover for migrating birds, routes between breeding waters and upland habitat for amphibians, and between roosting and feeding areas for birds. The San Jacinto River, where it passes under the I-15 within the BSA, likely provides for some level of regional wildlife movement. No direct effects to the San Jacinto River would occur as a result of the project. The project site is not adjacent to any existing or proposed linkage or core areas as identified in the MSHCP. With adherence to Minimization Measures AN-6 and AN-8, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. IV. e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant with Mitigation. A Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Assessment (August 2017)1 was prepared for the project. As described in Sections 2.18 and 2.19 of this IS/EA, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) with implementation of the identified mitigation and minimization measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AN-1, if burrowing owls are discovered during the pre-construction surveys, project- specific mitigation would be required. Mitigation measures would be developed and authorized through consultation with CDFW and USFWS, and would comply with the standards specified in MSHCP Table 9.2 and Appendix E, Summary of MSHCP Species Survey Requirements. In addition, implementation of Minimization Measures AN-2 through AN-9, presented below in Section 2.20.4, and Minimization Measures TE-1 through TE-3, presented below in section 2.21.4, would further minimize potential impacts and ensure that impacts remain less than significant. X. c) Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan with implementation of the identified 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 2017. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Assessment Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project. June. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-7 mitigation and minimization measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AN-1, presented below in Section 2.20.4, if burrowing owls are discovered during the pre-construction surveys, project-specific mitigation would be required. Mitigation measures would be developed and authorized through consultation with CDFW and USFWS, and would comply with the standards specified in MSHCP, Table 9.2, and Appendix E, Summary of MSHCP Species Survey Requirements. In addition, with implementation of Minimization Measures AN-6 and AN-7, presented below in Section 2.20.4, and TE-4, TE-6, and TE-7, presented below is Section 2.21.4, potential conflicts with applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan would be minimized and ensure that impacts remain less than significant. XVIV. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Based on the above evaluations and discussions, the project has a very limited potential to incrementally degrade the quality of the environment because the site was previously developed, is not in an environmentally sensitive location, and is consistent with the City’s General Plan. As a result, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AN-1 and WET-4 and Minimization Measures WET-1 through WET-3, AN-2 through AN-9, TE-1 through TE-3, and I-1, the project would not significantly affect the environment. 2.17.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures With implementation of Measures AN-2, AN-3, AN-5 (in Section 2.20.4, below), and IS-1 (in Section 2.22.4, below), potential permanent effects to willow scrub/mature individual willows and mule fat scrub communities would not be adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.17-8 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-1 2.18 Wetlands and Other Waters 2.18.1 Regulatory Setting Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal level, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA (33 USC 1344)] is the primary law regulating wetlands and surface waters. One purpose of the CWA is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Waters of the United States (waters of the U.S.) include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the CWA, a three-parameter approach is used that includes the presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils formed during saturation/inundation). All three parameters must be present, under normal circumstances, for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that discharge of dredged or fill material cannot be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. The Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army of Engineers (USACE) with oversight by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 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 USACE’s Standard permits. For Standard permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill 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 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. The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) also regulates the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this executive order states that a federal agency, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned, cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: (1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction, and (2) the project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm. At the state level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In certain circumstances, the Coastal Commission (or Bay Conservation and Development Commission or Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) may also be involved. Sections 1600–1607 of the California Fish and Game Code require any agency that proposes a project that would substantially divert or obstruct the natural Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-2 flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFW jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands under jurisdiction of the USACE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed Alteration Agreement obtained from the CDFW. The RWQCBs were established under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee water quality. 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. In compliance with Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCBs also issue water quality certifications for activities which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. Please see the Water Quality section for additional details. 2.18.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the report: Natural Environment Study (NES) (August 2017) Update to the Natural Environment Study Memorandum (NES Memorandum) (January 2015) Wetlands Delineation and Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters Report (August 2017) As discussed in more detail in Section 2.11, the project site is situated within Lake Elsinore Valley along the base of the Sedco Hills and Steele Peak. The Biological Study Area (BSA) intersects the San Jacinto River at the mouth of Railroad Canyon. Due to the proximity to hillside drainages and the river, several drainage features were identified within the BSA (including man-made channels and natural drainage features). The new BSA associated with Alternative 4 does not contain wetlands or waters subject to the regulatory authority of the USACE under Section 404 of the Federal CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA, or the CDFW under Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Based on the results of the Wetlands and Jurisdictional Delineation (Appendix H of the NES) for the project, the potentially jurisdictional areas in the BSA are identified in Figure 2.18.1, summarized in Table 2.18.A, and discussed in more detail below. 2.18.2.1 Riparian/Riverine Resources and Vernal Pools Southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub vegetation is present within the San Jacinto River (Drainage D6) in the BSA. In addition, mule fat scrub is present within concrete-lined drainage C4, and willow scrub is present within concrete-lined drainage C2. According to the 2015 NES Memorandum, the new BSA associated with Alternative 4 is located in the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP, which does not contain MSHCP riparian/riverine/vernal pool resources. 2.18.2.2 USACE Jurisdictional Areas Table 2.18.A identifies potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S./CDFW streambed within the BSA. The conclusions are subject to verification by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW (regulatory agencies). For this project, a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination will be pursued. A preliminary determination is a non-binding indication there “may be” waters of the Potential Jurisdictional Areas within the BSASOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; LSA Associates, Inc., 2014 I:\SAE1401\Reports\IS_EA\fig2-18-1_Potential_Juri_Areas.mxd (7/7/2017) 08-RIV-15-PM 18.3/21.0EA. 0A4400I-15/Railroad Canyon Road InterchangeInitial Study/Environmental Assessment FIGURE 2.18.1 0 750 1,500 Feet S!!N ¬1 Photograph location and direction taken Biological Study Area (BSA)Vegetation Ornam ental Southern W illow Scrub Willow Scrub/Individual Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Developed Disturbed/Ruderal Potential Waters of the U.S./Streambed Impacted Non-Impacted Mature W illows C1/D1 C1/D1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-4 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-5 Table 2.18.A: Potential Waters of the United States/CDFW Streambed Drainage Feature and Length (ft) Acres USACE Wetland Waters USACE Nonwetland Waters CDFW Jurisdictional Streambed/Riparian Habitat D1 383.415 None 0.018 0.044 D2 361.889 None 0.008 0.008 D3 238.393 None 0.005 0.005 D4 506.197 None 0.019 0.132 D5 4,968.172 None 0.506 0.506 D6 667.157 None 0.025 0.025 D7 549.496 None 0.051 0.355 D8 160.818 None 0.030 0.030 D9 562.000 2.838 0 3.929 D10 808.160 None 0.037 0.037 D11 739.136 None 0.449 0.665 D12 62.041 None 0.006 0.006 C1 14,213.181 None None None C2 1,310.862 None None None Artificial drainage with natural characteristics, but is transient C3 100.474 None None None C4 577.981 None None None Artificial drainage with natural characteristics, but is transient C 999.242 None None None C6 1,414.020 None None None Artificial drainage with natural characteristics, but is transient TOTALS 2.838 1.155 5.742 Source: Natural Environment Study (August 2017). CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-6 U.S. on the project site. For the purposes of determining impacts, compensatory mitigation, and avoidance and minimization measures, a preliminary determination will treat all waters and wetlands affected by the project as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. All natural drainages (Drainages D1 through D12) are jurisdictional under current CWA regulations as implemented by the USACE. All of these drainages were naturally occurring prior to the construction of I-15 and build out of the adjacent development. All drainages are now directed into culverts, storm drains, diverted by roads and other fill, and disturbed by current land uses. The following conclusions are based on the observations of trained and experienced wetlands and jurisdictional waters delineators applying pertinent manuals, regulations, and guidance to the conditions observed within the study area. The ordinary high water marks (OHWMs)1 are visible in most of the project drainages; are now converted into concrete-lined channels (Drainage D5); or are diverted into a storm drain (Drainages D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, D7, D8, D10, D11, and D12 ). USACE jurisdiction is based on connectivity to regularly perennial waters (San Jacinto River and Lake Elsinore) that have nexus to Federal jurisdictional waters, like the Pacific Ocean. Existing contiguity to the Walker Canyon, San Jacinto River, or Lake Elsinore is not confirmed in the field. However, Sedco Hills and associated topography drain in a southwesterly direction to Lake Elsinore Valley or the San Jacinto River (Drainage D9). Out of the identified drainages within the BSA, the San Jacinto River is the only drainage (Drainage D9) with intermittent water, hydric soils, and developed riparian/riverine habitat. All other drainages in the BSA are considered ephemeral. Drainage D1, D6, and D12 contain ruderal and nonnative grassland species. Drainages D2, D3, and D7 are vegetated by riversidean sage scrub and ruderal and nonnative grassland species Drainages D4 and D11 are primarily dominated by ruderal vegetation but also contains some riparian/riverine type vegetation, consisting of arroyo willow, blue elderberry, and tamarisk where it drains to a culvert under I-15. The upper end of Drainage D5 is vegetated by ruderal and nonnative grassland species before it turns into a concrete-lined channel Drainage D10 is vegetated by RSS in the northerly portions of the drainage not subject to disking and by ruderal and nonnative grassland species on the southerly disked portions. Drainages D8 is devoid of vegetation. The other drainage features identified as Drainages C1 through C6 are not natural drainages. These drainage features were constructed as part of another separate project along the I-15 corridor and consist of concrete-lined linear channels that are aligned parallel to I-15 or the access ramps. These concrete channels are not jurisdictional under current CWA regulations, per Rapanos guidelines, since they were “excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.” 2.18.2.3 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas The CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by the CDFW. CDFW jurisdiction typically extends beyond the streambed/banks to the limits of the riparian vegetation (if present) associated with streams, rivers, or lakes. 1 An ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is the point on a stream bank to which the presence and action of surface water is so continuous as to leave a district marked by erosion; destruction or prevention of woody terrestrial vegetation; predominance of aquatic vegetation; or other easily recognized characteristic. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-7 All natural drainages are considered jurisdictional according to current CDFW regulations. Drainage D8 is concrete lined and devoid of vegetation and does not contain the attributes of a natural waterway; however, because this drainage directly drains a natural drainage feature, it is considered subject to the regulatory authority of the CDFW. The remaining drainages are soft- bottomed drainage channels, and provide evidence of distinct banks. The channel beds and the USACE OHWMs of many of these drainages were not distinguishable due to disturbance from disking, grading, and storm drain diversion. As identified in previously referenced Table 2.18.A, Drainages D4, D9, and D11 are the only natural drainages containing riparian habitat. The remaining drainages are vegetated by native and nonnative upland vegetation (Drainages D1 through D3, D7, D10, and D12), or are devoid of vegetation (Drainage D8). The other drainage features identified as Drainages C1 through C6 are not natural drainages but were constructed as part of a separate project along the I-15 corridor. Although Drainages C2 through C4 and C6 contain riparian vegetation such as mule fat and willow saplings, these drainages are maintained for flood control purposes. Because of maintenance activities, this vegetation will not persist and is not considered a natural feature of these constructed drainages. Therefore, Drainages C1through C6 are not considered jurisdictional under current CDFW regulation. Following approval of the environmental document and as part of the permit process during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase (final design), the USACE will review the Jurisdictional Delineation and the final design plans and provide final concurrence on the Jurisdictional Delineation. 2.18.2.4 RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas Jurisdiction of the RWQCB coincides with that of the USACE. It is anticipated the RWQCB would regulate the same waters subject to USACE jurisdiction identified above. 2.18.3 Environmental Consequences 2.18.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not involve construction activities associated with the Build Alternatives; therefore, no temporary impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET There is the potential for temporary indirect water quality impacts through sediment introduction and transport downstream under Alternative 2. Refer to the discussion in Section 2.11 regarding this issue. Identification and implementation of erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs) in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP; refer to Section 2.11) for the project would avoid or minimize indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters during construction. With implementation of the measures outlined below in Section 2.18.4, in addition to the water quality measures presented in Section 2.11, potential temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters would not be adverse under this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Similar to Alternative 2, there is the potential for temporary indirect water quality impacts through sediment introduction and transport downstream under Alternative 3. Identification and implementation of erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention BMPs in the SWPPP (refer to Section 2.11) for the project would avoid or minimize indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-8 during construction. With implementation of the measures outlined below in Section 2.18.4, in addition to the water quality measures presented in Section 2.11, potential temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Similar to Alternative 2, there is the potential for temporary indirect water quality impacts through sediment introduction and transport downstream under Alternative 4. Identification and implementation of erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention BMPs in the SWPPP (refer to Section 2.11) for the project would avoid or minimize indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters during construction. With implementation of the measures outlined below in Section 2.18.4, in addition to the water quality measures presented in Section 2.11, potential temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters would not be adverse. 2.18.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in permanent impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters. ALL BUILD ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, AND 4) Based on information in the 2017 NES, the Biological Study Area (BSA) encompasses 1.155 acres of potential jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 2.838 acres of wetland waters of the U.S. subject to USACE and RWQCB regulatory authority. Of the total jurisdictional area identified, there would be permanent effects to 0.211 acre of potential jurisdictional non- wetland waters of the U.S. No wetland waters of the U.S. would be affected. The BSA also includes 5.742 acres of streambed/riparian habitat subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Of the total jurisdictional area identified, 0.280 acre of CDFW regulated streambed would be permanently affected. Permits will be required for project effects and include a CWA Section 404 permit authorization from the USACE, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. Impacts to potential waters of the U.S./streambeds are summarized in Table 2.18.B, below. Table 2.18.B Project Impacts: Wetlands and Other Waters1 USACE Nonwetland Waters (Drainages D1 through D8 and D10 through D12) 0.211 ac Wetland Waters (Drainage D9) 0.00 ac Total Jurisdictional Waters: USACE 0.211 ac CDFW Streambed/Riparian (Drainages D1 through D12) 0.280 ac Total Streambed/CDFW Jurisdiction 0.280 ac Source: Natural Environment Study (2017). 1 Impacts are the same for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 . ac = acre/acres CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers With implementation of Measures WET-1 through WET-3, which are provided below, the potential permanent project impacts to potential USACE non-wetland waters and CDFW jurisdictional areas would not be adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-9 CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: IV. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously identified, the project site is within a previously disturbed semi-urban area and the project limits generally occur within the existing State and City rights-of-way. Implementation of the project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. However, implementation of the project has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and exiting of construction equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, disturbances to soil surfaces, and improper removal and disposal of invasive species that results in the seed being spread along the highway. This may potentially affect existing habitat in the project vicinity. With implementation of Minimization Measure IS-1, presented below in Section 2.22.4, potential project-related permanent impacts related to invasive species would be minimized and less than significant. IV. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on information provided in the NES and the Wetlands Delineation and Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters Report (August 2017) prepared for the project, the project has the potential to permanently affect jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. No wetland waters of the U.S. will be affected. In addition, a CDFW regulated streambed will be permanently affected by the project. Permits will be required for project effects and include a CWA Section 404 permit authorization from the USACE, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. With implementation of Minimization Measures WET-1 through WET-3 and Mitigation Measure WET-4, presented below in Section 2.18.4, the potential permanent project impacts to potential USACE non-wetland waters and CDFW jurisdictional areas would be minimized and remain less than significant. 2.18.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As presented previously in Measure WQ-1 in Section 2.11, erosion control, sedimentation control, and pollution prevention BMPs would be implemented during construction, as specified in the SWPPP. In addition, as specified in Measure WQ-2 in Section 2.11, construction within the drainages would be limited to outside the rainy season to minimize erosion and sediment deposition within the drainages. In addition, the following measures are required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential project impacts to waters of the U.S and for compliance with MSHCP, Volume 1, Appendix C, Standard Best Management Practices: Minimization Measures WET-1 Prior to completion of final design, Caltrans shall submit the Jurisdictional Delineation to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Caltrans shall obtain the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from USACE during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. In addition, prior to Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.18-10 completion of final design, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) shall submit a Pre- Construction Notification form to the USACE to obtain coverage under Nationwide Permits 14 and 33, pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Any related measures associated with these permits will be implemented and will be incorporated into the Environmental Commitments Record prior to Ready to List. WET-2 Prior to completion of final design, the City shall obtain a certification of water quality or waiver from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Region 8, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. WET-3 Prior to completion of final design, the City shall obtain a letter of nonjurisdiction or a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Measures required by the Section 1602 permit that would be issued by the CDFW prior to construction will be implemented and will also be incorporated into the Environmental Commitments Record prior to project construction. Mitigation Measure WET-4 For impacts to streambed and non-wetland waters, the City will purchase credits from a USACE- and CDFW-approved mitigation bank in the form of habitat enhancement, habitat creation, or a combination of habitat enhancement and habitat creation. Mitigation ratios for impacts to waters typically vary from 1:1 to 5:1. Negotiation with the USACE and the CDFW will take place to establish final mitigation ratios. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.19-1 2.19 Plant Species 2.19.1 Regulatory Setting The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species. “Special-status” species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that are afforded varying levels of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Please see the Threatened and Endangered Species, Section 2.21, later in this document for detailed information regarding these species. This section of the document discusses all the other special-status plant species, including CDFW species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare and endangered plants. The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at United States Code 16 (USC), Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. The regulatory requirements for CESA can be found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. Department projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900-1913, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Sections 2100-21177. 2.19.1.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) provides for the assembly of conservation lands consisting of Core Areas and Linkages for the conservation of covered species. The conservation areas are to be assembled from portions of the MSHCP Criteria Area, which consist of quarter-section (i.e., approximately 160 acres) “criteria cells” each with specific criteria for the species conservation within that cell. Additionally, the MSHCP requires habitat suitability assessments and focused surveys to be conducted for certain species and complying with implementation policies, such as Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP, Section 6.1.2). 2.19.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Natural Environment Study (August 2017) Update to the Natural Environment Study (NES Memorandum) (January 2015) In the summer of 2014, the Project Development Team (PDT) and the City of Lake Elsinore introduced Alternative 4. The NES Memorandum was prepared to address Alternative 4 and to determine whether the recommendations contained in the NES prepared in 2010 and updated in 2017, which address Alternatives 2 and 3, are sufficient to address Alternative 4. Sensitive biological resources that could potentially occur within the project area were identified through literature review and on-site field investigations. In addition, the presence, or likelihood of presence, of sensitive species was based on the following criteria (in descending order, from species determined to be present to those considered potentially present): (1) direct observation of the species or its sign in the study area or immediate vicinity during surveys conducted for this study or reported in previous biological studies; (2) sighting by other qualified observers; Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.19-2 (3) record reported by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), published by the CDFW; (4) presence or location of specific species lists provided by private groups (e.g., CNPS); and (5) location of the study area lies within known distribution of a given species and containing appropriate habitat. A reconnaissance-level survey of the Biological Study Area (BSA) associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 was conducted on July 6, 2009, May 3, 2017, and June 13, 2017, to generally characterize the biological resources on the site and to ascertain the presence or absence of special-status plants or the likelihood of their occurrence for the 2017 NES. The survey evaluated the BSA based on existing conditions, with particular focus on the native vegetation and sensitive species. In addition, a pedestrian survey was conducted by Denise Woodard, consulting biologist and author of the 2017 NES, on December 11, 2014, to examine the BSA associated with Alternative 4. Vegetation within the BSA has been affected by the existing Interstate 15 (I-15) infrastructure, paved and dirt roadways, residential and commercial development, off-road vehicle use, and disking practices. Aside from developed areas, the BSA contains six vegetation communities: disturbed/ruderal, disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS), southern willow scrub, willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and ornamental. The dominant vegetation community within the BSA is disturbed/ruderal. Habitat for six non-Federal/State listed plant species was identified as potentially present within the BSA based on the presence of suitable vegetation and/or soils and includes the following: Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aruita) Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata) White rabbit tobacco (Psuedognaphalium leucocephalum) Coulter’s Matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri) 2.19.3 Environmental Consequences 2.19.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no construction would occur, and there would be no impacts to special-status plant species. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to plant resources. The potential impacts to such biological resources would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to plant resources. The Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.19-3 potential impacts to plant resources would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to plant resources. The potential impacts to plant resources would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. 2.19.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would occur; therefore, no permanent impacts to special-status plant species would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the loss of a minor number of nonnative trees and shrubs to accommodate the planned improvements and realignment of the ramps. Table 2.19.A provides a summary of impacts to vegetation communities located within the BSA under Alternative 2. Table 2.19.A: Alternative 2 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Use within the BSA Vegetation Total within BSA (Acres) Impacts (Acres) Developed 162.68 28.63 Disturbed/Ruderal 80.57 21.0 Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub 58.08 15.39 Southern Willow Scrub 1.89 0 Willow Scrub/Mature Individual Willows 0.31 0.01 Mule Fat Scrub 0.96 0 Ornamental 10.49 2.05 Total 317.0 67.09 Source: Natural Environment Study (August 2017). BSA = Biological Study Area As identified in Table 2.19.A, although the BSA does contain southern willow scrub (a natural community of special concern by the CDFW and the CNDDB), the project would not affect this natural community of concern. In addition, the project would not substantially affect the willow scrub/mature individual willows and mule fat scrub communities. The project would not have substantial effects to disturbed/ruderal, disturbed RSS, mule fat scrub, and ornamental communities within the BSA because these communities are disturbed by existing development and the impacts to these communities are relatively small. Of the six special-status plant species identified as potentially present within the BSA, none of the six species was observed during the reconnaissance-level survey of the BSA. In addition, due to existing disturbances and proximity to surrounding development, the project would not have substantial effects on these species. Further study of these species is not required because they have no official status, habitat in the BSA is considered to be of low value for these species, and the BSA does not lie within an MSHCP survey area for these species. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.19-4 Because there would be no effects to other special-status plant species, impacts are not considered substantial. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the loss of a minor number of nonnative trees and shrubs to accommodate the proposed improvements and realignment of the ramps. Table 2.19.B provides a summary of impacts to vegetation communities located within the BSA under Alternative 3. Table 2.19.B: Alternative 3 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Use within the BSA Vegetation Total within BSA (Acres) Impacts (Acres) Developed 162.68 32.68 Disturbed/Ruderal 80.57 21.13 Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub 58.08 14.99 Southern Willow Scrub 1.89 0 Willow Scrub/Mature Individual Willows 0.31 0.02 Mule Fat Scrub 0.96 0 Ornamental 10.49 2.01 Total 317.0 70.83 Source: Natural Environment Study (August 2017). BSA = Biological Study Area As identified in Table 2.19.B, although the BSA does contain southern willow scrub (a natural community of special concern by the CDFW and CNDDB), the project would not affect this natural community of concern. In addition, the project would not substantially affect the willow scrub/mature individual willows and mule fat scrub communities. The project would not have substantial effects to disturbed/ruderal, disturbed RSS, mule fat scrub, and ornamental communities within the BSA because these communities are disturbed by existing development and the impacts to these communities are relatively small. The impacts associated with non-Federal/State listed plant species within the BSA would be the same for Alternative 3 as those identified for Alternative 2. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in the loss of a minor number of nonnative trees and shrubs to accommodate the proposed improvements and realignment of the ramps. Table 2.19.C provides a summary of impacts to vegetation communities located within the BSA under Alternative 4. As identified in Table 2.19.C, although the BSA does contain southern willow scrub (a natural community of special concern by the CDFW and the CNDDB), the project would not affect this natural community of concern. In addition, the project would not substantially affect the willow scrub/mature individual willows and mule fat scrub communities. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.19-5 Table 2.19.C: Alternative 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Use within the BSA Vegetation Total within BSA (Acres) Impacts (Acres) Developed 162.68 28.63 Disturbed/Ruderal 80.57 21.0 Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub 58.08 15.39 Southern Willow Scrub 1.89 0 Willow Scrub/Mature Individual Willows 0.31 0.01 Mule Fat Scrub 0.96 0 Ornamental 10.49 2.05 Total 317.0 67.09 Source: Natural Environment Study (August 2017). BSA = Biological Study Area The project would not have substantial effects to disturbed/ruderal, disturbed RSS, mule fat scrub, and ornamental communities within the BSA because these communities are disturbed by existing development and the impacts to these communities are relatively small. The impacts associated with non-Federal/State listed plant species within the BSA would be the same for Alternative 4 as those identified for Alternative 2. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: IV. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Lake Elsinore has determined that several species of palms are important to maintaining the character of the local community and at protecting the local environment. According to the provisions of Ordinance 1044, no Significant Palm may be removed or relocated without a permit from the City of Lake Elsinore’s Director of Community Services. Construction of the project will result in the removal of adjacent trees and other mature vegetation, including Significant Palms. The project locations for the Casino Drive hook ramps (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 363-171-010), the Railroad Canyon Road roundabouts (APNs 363-140-090, 363-140-091, 363-130-044, 363-172-005), and the Franklin Street expansion at Auto Center Drive (APN 363540017) may result in the removal of Significant Palms from existing commercial areas. As noted above, any removal of a Significant Palm will require a permit from the Director of Community Services. Minimization Measure VIS-1 through VIS-3 and VIS-6, presented in Section 2.8.4, have been previously identified to reduce impacts related to the removal of trees and mature vegetation during construction of the project. Adherence to Minimization Measures VIS-1 through VIS-3 and VIS-6 would minimize impacts and ensure impacts remain less than significant. 2.19.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures With implementation of Measures AN-2, AN-3, AN-5 (in Section 2.20.4, below), and IS-1 (in Section 2.22.4, below), potential permanent effects to willow scrub/mature individual willows and mule fat scrub communities would not be adverse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.19-6 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-1 2.20 Animal Species 2.20.1 Regulatory Setting Many State and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under the State or Federal Endangered Species Act in Section 2.21 below. All other special-status animal species are discussed here, including CDFW fully protected species and species of special concern, and USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service candidate species. Federal laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following: National Environmental Policy Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act State laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following: California Environmental Quality Act Sections 1600–1603 of the Fish and Game Code Section 4150 and 4152 of the Fish and Game Code 2.20.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for this project: Natural Environment Study (NES) (August 2017) Update to the Natural Environment Study Memorandum (NES Memorandum) (January 2015) In the summer of 2014, the Project Development Team (PDT) and the City of Lake Elsinore introduced Alternative 4. The NES Memorandum was prepared to address Alternative 4 and to determine whether the recommendations contained in the NES prepared in 2010 and updated in 2017, which address Alternatives 2 and 3, are sufficient to address Alternative 4. Sensitive biological resources that could potentially occur within the project area were identified through literature review and on-site field investigations. In addition, the presence, or likelihood of presence, of sensitive species was based on the following criteria (in descending order, from species determined to be present to those considered potentially present): (1) direct observation of the species or its sign in the study area or immediate vicinity during surveys conducted for this study or reported in pervious biological studies; (2) sighting by other qualified observed; (3) record reported by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) published by CDFW; (4) presence or location of specific species lists provided by private groups (e.g., California Native Plant Society [CNPS]); and (5) location of the study area lies within known distribution of a given species and containing appropriate habitat. Prior to on-site biological surveys, a literature review and records search were conducted to identify the existence or potential occurrence of sensitive or special-status biological resources Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-2 (e.g., animal species) in or within the vicinity of the Biological Study Area (BSA) for both the 2017 NES and the 2015 NES Memorandum. The BSA for the project includes the entire proposed ground disturbance area associated with the interchange, including the grading limits and staging areas. The BSA is defined by the project limits and extends along Interstate 15 (I- 15) approximately 0.5 mile east of Lake Elsinore and is situated within Lake Elsinore Valley along the base of the Sedco Hills and Steele Peak. The results of the literature review indicated the potential occurrence of 25 non-listed special-interest animal species in the BSA. The BSA for Alternative 4 assessed in the 2015 NES Memorandum is located along Railroad Canyon Road and includes Mission Trail-Lake Shore Drive and Grape Street-Summerhill Drive. These areas are highly developed with primarily commercial uses. A reconnaissance-level survey of the BSA associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 was conducted on July 6, 2009, May 3, 2017, and June 13, 2017, to generally characterize the biological resources on the site and to ascertain the presence or absence of Federal/State listed or special-status animals or the likelihood of their occurrence. The survey evaluated the BSA based on existing conditions, with particular focus on the native vegetation and sensitive species. In addition, a pedestrian survey was conducted by Denise Woodard, consulting biologist and author of the 2017 NES, on December 11, 2014, to examine the BSA associated with Alternative 4. Four special-interest animal species were observed or otherwise detected in the BSA during the site visit. These include orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), and San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii). In addition, a focused survey was conducted for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). No additional special-interest animal species were observed or otherwise detected in the BSA associated with Alternative 4, based on the research conducted for the 2015 NES Memorandum. Common animal species identified in the BSA include checkered white (Pontia protodice), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Appendix D of the 2017 NES provides a complete list of plant and animal species observed. No additional common animal species have the potential to occur within the BSA associated with Alternative 4. The BSA does not appear to function as a wildlife movement corridor. Much of the habitat within the BSA has been fragmented by I-15 and residential and commercial development. I-15 is a regional barrier to east and west wildlife movement through the BSA and surrounding areas. The San Jacinto River, where it passes under the I-15 within the BSA, likely provides for some level of regional wildlife movement. 2.20.3 Environmental Consequences 2.20.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no construction would occur, and there would be no impacts to special-status animal species. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Construction of Alternative 2 would not cause impacts to any wildlife movement corridors. However, temporary indirect impacts may occur as a result of construction-related impacts such as dust, potential fuel spills from construction equipment, possible night lighting during Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-3 construction, and activities of equipment or personnel outside designated construction areas as well as operation impacts such as any on adjacent habitats caused by storm water runoff, traffic, and litter. The BSA indicates potentially suitable nesting habitat for several bird species including: Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), burrowing owl, California horned lark, and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Two of these species, Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark were found to be present within the BSA. With implementation of Measures AN-2 and AN-3, provided below, potential temporary impacts during project construction to migratory birds would not be adverse. The project site was also found to contain potentially suitable habitat for the burrowing owl in the form of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and disturbed/ruderal habitats within the BSA. No burrowing owl sign was detected within the BSA during the spring 2009 focused survey or the 2014 pedestrian survey of the area included within the BSA as a result of Alternative 4; however, the species is highly mobile and has the potential to move onto the project site prior to construction. With implementation of Measure AN-1, provided below, potential temporary impacts during project construction to burrowing owls would not be adverse under this alternative. No mitigation is required if impacts are avoided as stated above; however, if burrowing owls are discovered during subsequent surveys, project-specific mitigation would be required. Mitigation measures would be developed and authorized through consultation with the CDFW and the USFWS, as outlined in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Table 9.2, and Appendix E of this document, Summary of MSHCP Species Survey Requirements. Two special-status bat species were identified as having the potential to be present within the BSA: western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). The bridges spanning over the San Jacinto River contain suitable bat night-roosting habitat (i.e., crevices). Bats that utilize crevices, including the western mastiff bat, may use existing bridges within the project limits. The BSA does not contain suitable roosting habitat for the western yellow bat. Avoidance and minimization measures are identified below to address potential impacts to bat species. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Construction of Alternative 3 would not cause any impacts to wildlife movement corridors. However, temporary indirect impacts may occur as a result of construction-related impacts such as dust, potential fuel spills from construction equipment, possible night lighting during construction, and activities of equipment or personnel outside designated construction areas as well as operational impacts, such as any impacts on adjacent habitats caused by storm water runoff, traffic, and litter. Alternative 3 would have the same temporary impacts as identified for Alternative 2. The same avoidance and minimization measures identified for Alternative 2 would apply for Alternative 3. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Construction of Alternative 4 would not cause any impacts to wildlife movement corridors. However, temporary indirect impacts may occur as a result of construction-related impacts such as dust, potential fuel spills from construction equipment, possible night lighting during construction, and activities of equipment or personnel outside designated construction areas as well as operational impacts, such as any impacts on adjacent habitats caused by storm water Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-4 runoff, traffic, and litter. Alternative 4 would have the same temporary impacts as identified for Alternatives 2 and 3. The same avoidance and minimization measures identified for Alternative 2 would apply for Alternative 4. 2.20.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would occur; therefore, no permanent impacts to animal species would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in the loss of a minor number of nonnative trees and shrubs to accommodate the planned improvements and realignment of the ramps. As previously discussed, habitat for 25 non-listed special-status animal species was identified as potentially present within the BSA. According to the 2017 NES, four of the 25 non-listed special-status species were found to be present within the BSA: Orange-throated whiptail, Cooper’s hawk, California horned lark, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. The burrowing owl was found to be absent during the 2009 focused survey. These 25 species are not Federal/State listed species, but are of limited distribution in Southern California. Ongoing development is further reducing their ranges and numbers. These species have no official status but under CEQA, they require consideration. Due to the marginal, disturbed nature of the existing habitat conditions within the BSA, the project would not have substantial effects on these species. In addition, 15 of the 25 species are considered to be adequately conserved under the MSHCP and are listed below: 1. Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) 2. Belding’s orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi) 3. Coastal western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) 4. Red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) 5. Blainville’s horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillei) 6. Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 7. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) 8. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 9. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 10. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 11. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) 12. California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) 13. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) 14. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) 15. Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) No adverse effects from the project are anticipated to occur to the above-mentioned MSHCP species. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-5 ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would have the same impacts as identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, due to the marginal, disturbed nature of the existing habitat conditions within the BSA, the project would not have substantial effects on the four non-listed special-status species found on site. In addition, no adverse effects from the project are anticipated to occur to the identified and adequately conserved MSHCP species. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would have the same impacts as identified for Alternative 2. Although the new BSA area associated with Alternative 4 is located in the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP, the BSA associated with Alternative 4 is not within MSCHP survey areas for Criteria Areas Species Survey Area (CASSA) or other MSHCP survey species area (e.g., burrowing owl). The BSA for Alternative 4 is within MSHCP Criteria Cell No. 4647, which focuses on conservation of riparian scrub and woodland/forest habitat. However, this habitat is not present within the BSA due to the highly developed conditions of the area. Therefore, due to the marginal, disturbed nature of the existing habitat conditions within the BSA, the project would not have substantial effects on the four non-listed special-status species found on site. In addition, no adverse effects from the project are anticipated to occur to the identified and adequately conserved MSHCP species. CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: IV. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is within a previously disturbed semi- urban area. The project limits generally occur within the existing State and City rights-of-way. Federal- and State-Listed Species Least Bell’s Vireo. Two pairs of Least Bell’s Vireo (LBV) were found within the Biological Study Area (BSA) within the San Jacinto River during the spring 2009 focused surveys. The LBV were observed within MSHCP Criteria Cells 4646 and 4647. However, the LBV territory is not within, but adjacent to, the proposed construction limits, and no direct effects to the LBV or its habitat will occur as a result of the project. In addition, critical habitat for the LBV is not present within the BSA. The project will not result in permanent indirect effects to the LBV; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of Minimization Measures AN-3 through AN-6, and AN-8, presented below in Section 2.20.4, and Minimization Measure TE-1, presented in Section 2.21.4, potential temporary indirect effects to the LBV and its habitat would be minimized and impacts would remain less than significant. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Although the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) was not observed during the 2009 focused survey, this species may utilize riparian habitat occupied by the LBV within the San Jacinto River. Similar to the discussion above regarding the LBV, no direct effects to the SWWF or its habitat will occur as a result of the project. The project will not result in permanent indirect effects to the SWWF. Impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of Minimization Measures AN-1 through AN-6, and AN-8, presented below in Section 2.20.4, and Minimization Measure TE-1, presented in Section 2.21.4, potential Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-6 temporary indirect effects to the SWWF and its habitat would be minimized and impacts would remain less than significant. Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. The BSA contains moderately suitable habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) in the form of disturbed/ruderal and disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub. This species is covered under the MSHCP, which requires no focused survey. Under Section 7 of Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the project poses a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” through removal of potentially occupied habitat. However, the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR in Western Riverside County (Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, February 1995) provides full mitigation for impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and FESA. While impacts are not considered significant, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AN-1 and Minimization Measures AN-2 through AN-6, and AN-8, presented below in Section 2.20.4, and Minimization Measure TE-2, presented in Section 2.21.4, potential temporary impacts during project construction to SKR would remain less than significant. Non-Listed Species Portions of the project BSA provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for several bird species with the presence of the following species noted during biological surveys: Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark. The bird nesting season is typically defined as between February 15 and September 1. To ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, implementation of Minimization Measures AN-7, presented below in Section 2.20.4, potential temporary impacts to migratory birds during project construction would remain less than significant. Burrowing Owl. The project site was also found to contain potentially suitable habitat for the burrowing owl within the BSA. No burrowing owl sign was detected within the BSA during the spring 2009 focused survey or the 2014 pedestrian survey of the area included within the BSA; however, the species is highly mobile and has the potential to move onto the project site prior to construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AN-1, potential temporary impacts during project construction to burrowing owls would be reduced to below a significant level. No mitigation is required if impacts are avoided; however, if burrowing owls are discovered during the pre-construction surveys required under Mitigation Measure AN-1, presented below in Section 2.20.4, project-specific mitigation would be required. Mitigation measures would be developed and authorized through consultation with CDFW and USFWS, and would comply with the standards specified in MSHCP, Table 9.2, and Appendix E, Summary of MSHCP Species Survey Requirements.1 2.20.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following measures are required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential project impacts to special-status animal species: Mitigation Measure AN-1 A burrowing owl pre-construction survey within 30 days prior to ground disturbance is mandatory in suitable habitat areas. If burrowing owls are found to be present in the Biological Study Area (BSA) during subsequent pre- construction surveys, then the project-specific mitigation would be developed and authorized through consultation with the Western Riverside County Regional 1 Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. June 17. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-7 Conservation Authority, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as outlined in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Table 9.2, and Appendix E of this document, Summary of MSHCP Species Survey Requirements. Minimization Measures AN-2 Prior to clearing or construction, highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) will be installed disturbed/ruderal and Riversidean sage scrub plant communities adjacent to the project footprint to be flagged as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to be preserved. No grading or fill activity of any type will be permitted within these ESAs. In addition, heavy equipment, including motor vehicles, will not be allowed to operate within the ESAs. All construction equipment will be operated in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to nearby preserved areas. No structure of any kind, or incidental storage of equipment or supplies, shall be allowed within these protected zones. Silt fence barriers will be installed at the ESA boundary to prevent accidental deposition of fill material in areas where vegetation is immediately adjacent to planned grading activities. AN-3 All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities will occur in developed or designated non-sensitive upland habitat areas. The designated upland areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent the runoff from any spills from entering waters of the United States or waters of the State. AN-4 Per the project’s Storm Water Data Report (July 2017), best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to avoid or reduce potential storm water impacts to affected downstream waters. Avoidance and minimization efforts will be implemented through the use of pollution prevention BMPs, treatment BMPs, and construction site BMPs. AN-5 A qualified biologist shall monitor construction for the duration of the project to ensure that vegetation removal, BMPs, ESAs, and all avoidance and minimization measures are properly constructed and followed. AN-6 The project will comply with MSHCP Section 6.1.4. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface, which addresses effects associated with locating development in proximity to an MSHCP Conservation area. In addition, the project will comply with MSHCP, Volume 1, Appendix C, Standard Best Management Practices, and MSHCP, Section 7.5.3, Construction Guidelines. AN-7 Vegetation clearing and preliminary ground disturbance work will be completed outside of bird breeding season (typically set as February 15 through September 1). In the event that initial groundwork cannot be conducted outside the bird breeding season, focused surveys will be conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities. Should nesting birds be found, an exclusionary buffer will be established by the biologist. The buffer may be up to 500 feet in diameter depending on the species of nesting bird found. This buffer will be clearly marked in the field by construction personnel under guidance of the biologist, and construction or clearing will not be conducted within this zone until the biologist determines that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-8 In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and for compliance with the MSHCP Incidental Take Permit Condition 5, any vegetation removal or tree (native or exotic) trimming activities will occur outside of the nesting bird season (typically set as February 15 through September 1). In the event vegetation clearing is necessary during the nesting season, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey within three days of ground disturbing activities to identify the locations of nests. Should nesting birds be found, the biologist will establish an exclusionary buffer that shall be clearly marked in the field by construction personnel under guidance of the biologist. Construction or clearing shall not be conducted within this zone until the biologist determines that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Nesting bird habitat within the BSA will be resurveyed during the general bird breeding season if there is a lapse in construction activities longer than seven days. AN-8 Any new lighting fixtures that would be installed within 300 feet of the San Jacinto River shall be wildlife-friendly and shall be directed away from biologically sensitive areas, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas, and vegetated drainages. AN-9 Prior to construction, an agency -approved bat biologist shall conduct a bat assessment survey to determine the presence or absence of bat species that may occur within the project limits. Should the presence of bat species be determined during this assessment, the following measures shall be implemented to address potential impacts to bats. Project-related construction activities shall occur outside of the bat maternity roosting season (April 1–August 31), if feasible. Should such activities occur during the maternity roosting season (April 1–August 31), the following measures shall be implemented to minimize potential impacts to day-roosting bats (including maternity colonies) from project construction. Nighttime exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed by an agency- approved bat biologist at all structures that may be subject to project-related impacts. These surveys shall be performed during the recognized bat maternity season (April 1–August 31, but preferably in June or July), and as far in advance of construction as possible in order to provide adequate time for mitigation planning. Construction activities at structures housing maternity colonies shall be coordinated with an agency-approved bat biologist and the CDFW. If direct impacts to bat roosting habitat are anticipated, humane evictions and exclusions of roosting bats should be performed under the supervision of an agency-approved bat biologist after August 31 in the fall (September or October) prior to any work activities that would result in direct impacts or direct mortality to roosting bats. This action will be performed in coordination with the CDFW. To avoid potential mortality of flightless juvenile bats, evictions and exclusions of bats cannot be performed during the maternity season (April 1–August 31). Winter months are also inappropriate for bat eviction because not all individuals in a roost will emerge on any given night. In addition, long-distance movements to other roost sites are more difficult Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-9 during the winter when prey availability is scarce, resulting in high mortality rates of evicted bats. Alternate bat-roosting habitat structures should be installed on the structure prior to the eviction/exclusion of bats from that structure. The design, numbers, and locations of these roost structures should be determined in consultation with an agency-approved bat biologist. If permanent, direct impacts to bat roosting habitat are anticipated and a humane eviction/exclusion is performed, alternate permanent roosting habitat shall be provided to ensure no net loss of bat roosting habitat. This action shall be coordinated with the CDFW, and locations of these roost structures should be determined in consultation with an agency-approved bat biologist to ensure that the installed habitat will provide adequate mitigation for impacts. The loss of a night roost can negatively affect the use of a foraging area, and consequently may result in reduced fecundity in species that are already slow to reproduce. If night roosting is confirmed at any of the structures within the proposed project area, the following measure to minimize potential impacts to night-roosting and foraging bats shall be implemented: At structures where night roosting is suspected or confirmed, work shall be limited to the daylight hours to the greatest extent feasible to avoid potential disruption of foraging. If night work cannot be avoided, night lighting shall be focused only on the area of direct work, airspace access to and from the roost features of the structure shall not be obstructed, and light spillover into the adjacent foraging areas shall be minimized to greatest extent feasible. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.20-10 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-1 2.21 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.21.1 Regulatory Setting The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): 16 United States Code (USC) Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. This act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under Section 7 is a Biological Opinion or an Incidental Take statement. Section 3 of FESA defines take as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct.” California has enacted a similar law at the State level, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the agency responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an incidental take permit is issued by the CDFW. For species listed under both FESA and CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FESA, CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code. Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising (1) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and (2) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas. 2.21.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Natural Environment Study (NES) (August 2017) Update to the Natural Environment Study (NES Memorandum) (January 2015) In the summer of 2014, the Project Development Team (PDT) and the City of Lake Elsinore introduced Alternative 4. The NES Memorandum was prepared to address Alternative 4 and to determine whether the recommendations contained in the NES prepared in 2010, which address Alternatives 2 and 3, are sufficient to address Alternative 4. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-2 Prior to on-site biological surveys, a literature review and records search were conducted for both the 2017 NES and the 2015 NES Memorandum to identify the existence or potential occurrence of sensitive or special-status biological resources (e.g., animal species) in or within the vicinity of the Biological Study Area (BSA). The results of the literature review prepared for the 2017 NES indicated the potential occurrence of five Federal/State listed species in the BSA based on potentially suitable habitat present within the BSA. These include Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). The literature review conducted for the 2015 NES Memorandum did not find any new special-status species outside those evaluated as part of the 2017 NES. Resource Agency coordination also included receipt of a Species List from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, June 20, 2017). A copy of the Species List is provided in Chapter 3. The project is located outside of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jurisdictional boundary/quadrangle, and the BSA is outside the range of species under NMFS jurisdiction listed on the USFWS Information Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) species list. Therefore, the NMFS species list was not requested from NMFS. Focused surveys were conducted in 2009 for the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) and least Bell’s vireo (LBV). The LBV was determined to be present within the BSA. The SWWF was found to be absent from the BSA. The BSA provides low quality habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and coastal California gnatcatcher. Both of these species are covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Because these species are MSHCP covered species and habitat is considered to be of low value, further study of these species in not required and these species are not discussed further here. The BSA provides moderate quality habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) within the disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) plant community. Several depressions within the BSA were evaluated as potential vernal pools. A habitat assessment for fairy shrimp was conducted within the BSA by USFWS-permitted (USFWS Permit TE-777965-10) fairy shrimp biologist Stan Spencer with assistance from Denise Woodard on April 19, 2010. The results of the 2010 fairy shrimp habitat assessment found that the depressions within the BSA do not have the vegetative, hydrologic, or soil characteristics associated with vernal pools and would not support federally listed fairy shrimp including Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Based on new information, related to potential impacts to threatened/endangered fairy shrimp species, the USFWS advised that there was a new recent record of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) in Riverside County, and that the depressions on site may support this species. However, during March 2017 consultation with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, the USFWS raised concerns, based on new information, related to potential impacts to threatened/endangered fairy shrimp species. The USFWS stated that there was a new recent record of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) in Riverside County, and that the depressions on site may support this species. No other Federal or State listed threatened/endangered species are present in the BSA for the project. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-3 Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP. USFWS Section 7 Consultation/streamlined biological opinion is not necessary due to the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. 2.21.3 Environmental Consequences 2.21.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no construction would occur, and there would be no impacts to Federal or State threatened or endangered species. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to the existing freeway and local streets. These construction activities could result in impacts to Federal or State threatened or endangered species. The potential impacts to these species would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would require ground disturbance and modification to the existing freeway and local streets. These construction activities could result in impacts to Federal or State threatened or endangered species. The potential impacts to these species would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would require ground disturbance and modification to the existing freeway and local streets. These construction activities could result in impacts to Federal or State threatened or endangered species. The potential impacts to these species would be permanent impacts and are addressed below. Any analysis of temporary impacts is not applicable. 2.21.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would occur; therefore, no permanent impacts to Federal or State threatened or endangered species would occur. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Two pairs of LBV were found within the BSA within the San Jacinto River during the spring 2009 focused surveys. The LBV were observed within MSHCP Criteria Cells Nos. 4646 and 4647. The LBV territories are not within, but adjacent to, the proposed construction limits, and no direct effects to the LBV or its habitat would occur as a result of the project. In addition, critical habitat for the LBV is not present within the BSA. With implementation of Measures AN-3 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-1, provided below, potential permanent indirect effects to the LBV and its habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. The spring 2009 focused survey determined the SWWF, an MSHCP covered species, to be absent from the BSA. In addition, critical habitat for the SWWF is not present within the BSA. Although the SWWF was not observed during the 2009 focused survey, this species may utilize Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-4 riparian habitat occupied by the least Bell’s vireo within the San Jacinto River. With implementation of Measures AN-3 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-1, provided below, potential permanent indirect effects to the SWWF and its habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. The BSA contains moderately suitable habitat for the SKR in the form of disturbed/ruderal and disturbed RSS. This species is covered under the MSHCP, which requires no focused survey. Impacts to the SKR would result from the loss of 15.39 acres of disturbed RSS for Alternative 2. Under Section 7 of FESA, the project poses a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” through removal of potentially occupied habitat. However, the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR in Western Riverside County (Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, February 1995) provides full mitigation for impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CESA, and FESA. Therefore, with implementation of Measures AN-2 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-2, provided below, project impacts to SKR would be reduced. Based a new recent record of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) in Riverside County, depressions on site may support this species. Implementation of Measure TE-3 would ensure that impacts to federally listed fairy shrimp species would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE The impacts associated with threatened or endangered species within the BSA would be the same for Alternative 3 as those identified for Alternative 2, with the exception of impacts related to the loss of suitable SKR habitat (disturbed RSS). This species is covered under the MSHCP, which requires no focused survey. Impacts to the SKR would result from the loss of 14.99 acres of disturbed RSS for Alternative 3 and would be slightly higher than the area affected for Alternative 2. With implementation of Measures AN-3 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-1, provided below, potential indirect effects to the LBV and SWWF and their habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. With implementation of Measures AN-2 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-2, provided below, potential impacts to SKR would be reduced under this alternative. Implementation of Measure TE-3 would ensure that impacts to federally listed fairy shrimp species would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE The impacts associated with threatened or endangered species within the BSA would be the same for Alternative 4 as those identified for Alternative 2. The BSA associated with Alternative 4 is located in the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP, which does not contain MSHCP riparian/riverine/vernal pool resources, and is not within MSHCP survey areas for Criteria Areas Species Survey Area (CASSA) and Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) plants or other MSHCP survey species areas (e.g., burrowing owl). However, the BSA is within MSHCP Criteria Cell No. 4647; specifically, the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) at the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street- Summerhill Drive. Conservation goals within Criteria Cell No. 4647 focuses on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along the San Jacinto River, adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat, and additional chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat within the cell. As detailed previously, the new BSA is developed and thus does not contain habitats subject to conservation within Criteria Cell No. 4647. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-5 With implementation of Measures AN-3 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-1, provided below, potential indirect effects to the LBV and the SWWF and their habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. With implementation of Measures AN- 2 through AN-6, and AN-8 (in Section 2.20.4, above), and Measure TE-2, provided below, potential impacts during project construction to SKR would be reduced under this alternative. Implementation of Measure TE-3 would ensure that impacts to federally listed fairy shrimp species would not be adverse. With implementation of Minimization Measures TE-1 through TE-3, listed below in Section 2.21.4, there would be “no effect” to the federally endangered least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and the federally endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis).While the project poses a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” through removal of potentially occupied habitat for the SKR, the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR in Western Riverside County (Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, February 1995) provides full mitigation for impacts under FESA. There is no suitable habitat present for the other 12 species listed on the USFWS Species list; therefore, the project would have “no effect” on the following species: Plants California Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia californica), federally endangered Munz’s Onion (Allium munzii), federally endangered San Diego Ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), federally endangered San Jacinto Valley Crownscale (Atriplex coronate var. notatior); federally endangered Spreading Navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), federally threatened Thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), federally threatened Mammals San Bernardino Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), federally threatened Birds California Coastal Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), federally threatened Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus), federally threatened Insects Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino [=E. e. wrighti]), federally endangered Crustaceans Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), federally endangered Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), federally threatened Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-6 CEQA DISCUSSION Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Please refer to Section 2.20.3 above for a discussion of the project’s impact on special-status, sensitive, or candidate species. 2.21.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following measures are required to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential project impacts to Federal or State threatened or endangered species: Minimization Measures TE-1 Prior to clearing or construction during the least Bell’s vireo nesting season (March 15 to September 1), highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) will be installed providing a minimum 500- foot buffer around riparian and riverine communities adjacent to the project footprint to be flagged as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to be preserved. The ESAs will serve as an exclusionary buffer delineating areas where no work shall be performed during the least Bell’s vireo nesting season. More specifically, no grading or fill activity of any type will be permitted within these ESAs. In addition, heavy equipment, including motor vehicles, will not be allowed to operate within the ESAs. All construction equipment will be operated in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to nearby preserved areas. No structure of any kind, or incidental storage of equipment or supplies, shall be allowed within these protected zones. Silt fence barriers will be installed at the ESA boundary to prevent accidental deposition of fill material in areas where vegetation is adjacent to planned grading activities. These special provisions shall be incorporated into the project’s specifications and construction documents. TE-2 The project will comply with the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, February 1995) and fulfill its compensatory mitigation requirements under this plan. TE-3 To address potential impacts to listed fairy shrimp species potentially within depressional areas that would be affected by project implementation., the Final Environmental Document shall include one of the following program and implementation actions to be completed after approval of the Final Environmental Document but prior to any ground disturbance activities within depressional areas that may be potentially affected by project implementation. Only one of the two options identified below is required to address potential impacts to listed fairy shrimp species potentially within depressional areas within the project limits. Option A: 1) Conduct one single dry-season (i.e., no water present) fairy shrimp sampling within the depressional areas that would be affected by the project to Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-7 determine if fairy shrimp cysts are present. The sampling shall require special authorization from the USFWS. If cysts are determined to be present, assume presence of listed fairy shrimp species within depressional areas that would be affected by project implementation without hatching the cysts. 2) Remove the top two inches of soil from these areas and translocate the soil to an area of fairy shrimp habitat creation to be determined in consultation with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and approved by the USFWS and CDFW. The long-term management of the fairy shrimp habitat where soils will be translocated if listed fairy shrimp are found shall be the responsibility of the City. If the receptor site is not suitable due to insufficient area for placement outside of existing seasonal pool and smooth tarplant mitigation areas, the RCA would be willing to accept soils and long term management of the same if an appropriate RCA owned and managed receptor site can be identified. In order to minimize potential damage to fairy shrimp cysts, the soil must be dry when it is removed. 3) Upon translocation of the soils as approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies, no additional measures for fairy shrimp will be required, and impacts to the depressional areas affected by project implementation may proceed. Option B: 1) Conduct one single dry-season (i.e., no water present) fairy shrimp survey/ sampling within the depressional areas that would be affected by the project. The survey/sampling shall require special authorization from the USFWS. 2) If fairy shrimp cysts are found during the survey/sampling, an attempt to hatch them shall be made. 3) If hatching is unsuccessful, or if hatching is successful and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) or San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) (i.e., listed fairy shrimp) are identified among the hatched fairy shrimp, the soil from the affected depressions shall be translocated to an area of existing fairy shrimp habitat to be determined in consultation with the RCA and approved by the USFWS and CDFW. The long-term management of the fairy shrimp habitat where soils will be translocated if listed fairy shrimp are found shall be the responsibility of the City. If the receptor site is not suitable due to insufficient area for placement outside of existing seasonal pool and smooth tarplant mitigation areas, the RCA would be willing to accept soils and long term management of the same if an appropriate RCA owned and managed receptor site can be identified. In order to minimize potential damage to fairy shrimp cysts, the soil must be dry when it is removed. 4) If hatching is successful and hatched fairy shrimp are all determined to be versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli, a common species), no additional measures for fairy shrimp shall be required, and impacts to the depressional areas affected by project implementation may proceed. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.21-8 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.22-1 2.22 Invasive Species 2.22.1 Regulatory Setting On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States (U.S.). The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Federal Highway Administration guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the State’s invasive species list currently maintained by the California Invasive Species Council to define the invasive species that must be considered as part of the NEPA analysis for a project. 2.22.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Natural Environment Study (NES) (August 2017) NES Update Memorandum (NES Memorandum) (January 2015) Table 2.22.A lists invasive plant species observed in the BSA during the 2009 site visit conducted for the 2017 NES originally prepared in 2010. There are exotic plant species within the nonnative plant communities throughout the BSA, in areas that have been disturbed by human uses. Exotic species are typically more numerous adjacent to roads and developed areas and frequently border ornamental landscapes. Table 2.22.A: Invasive Plant Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome High1 Tamarix ramosissima Mediterranean tamarisk High Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Moderate2 Avena barbata slender wild oat Moderate Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Moderate Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard Moderate Centaurea melitensis tocalote Moderate Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Moderate Hordeum murinum foxtail barley Moderate Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco Moderate Schinus sp. pepper tree Limited3 Salsola tragus Russian thistle Limited Ricinus communis castor bean Limited Erodium cicutarium redstem stork’s bill Limited Marrubium vulgare horehound Limited Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass Limited Source: Natural Environment Study (August 2017). Notes: Plants with a rating of high have severe ecological impacts. Plants with a rating of moderate have a substantial and apparent, but not severe, ecological impacts. Plants with a limited rating are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level. Cal-IPC = California Invasive Plant Council Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.22-2 The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory is based on information submitted by members, land managers, botanists, and researchers throughout the State as well as published sources. The inventory highlights nonnative plants that are serious problems in wildlands (natural areas that support native ecosystems, including national, State, and local parks; ecological reserves; wildlife areas; National Forests; and Bureau of Land Management lands; etc.). The inventory categorizes plants as High, Moderate, or Limited based on the species’ negative ecological impact in California. Plants categorized as High have severe ecological impacts. Plants categorized as Moderate have substantial and apparent, but not severe, ecological impacts. Plants categorized as Limited are invasive, but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level. 2.22.3 Environmental Consequences 2.22.3.1 Temporary Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no construction and no temporary project-related changes to the extent of invasive species that occur within the BSA. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Impacts related to invasive species for Alternative 2 are considered permanent impacts because the introduction of invasive species into previously undisturbed areas would result in permanent impacts to the habitat. Therefore, impacts related to invasive species as a result of the implementation of Alternative 2 are described below under permanent impacts. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Impacts related to invasive species are considered permanent impacts because the introduction of invasive species into previously undisturbed areas would result in permanent impacts to the habitat. Therefore, impacts related to invasive species as a result of the project are described below under permanent impacts. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Impacts related to invasive species are considered permanent impacts because the introduction of invasive species into previously undisturbed areas would result in permanent impacts to the habitat. Therefore, impacts related to invasive species as a result of the project are described below under permanent impacts. 2.22.3.2 Permanent Impacts ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction of any improvements to Interstate 15 (I-15) and, therefore, would not result in any adverse permanent impacts related to invasive species. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET The construction of Alternative 2 has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and exiting of construction equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, disturbances to soil surfaces, and improper removal and disposal of invasive species that results in the seed being spread along the highway. In compliance with EO 13112, a weed abatement program will be developed to minimize the importation of nonnative plant material during and after construction of the project. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.22-3 With implementation of Measure IS-1, provided below, potential project-related permanent impacts related to invasive species would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Similar to Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 3 has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and exiting of construction equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, disturbances to soil surfaces, and improper removal and disposal of invasive species that results in the seed being spread along the highway. With implementation of Measure IS-1, provided below, potential project-related permanent impacts related to invasive species would not be adverse. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Similar to Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 4 has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and exiting of construction equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, disturbances to soil surfaces, and improper removal and disposal of invasive species that results in the seed being spread along the highway. With implementation of Measure IS-1, provided below, potential project-related permanent impacts related to invasive species would not be adverse. 2.22.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following measures are required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential project impacts related to invasive species: Minimization Measure IS-1 In compliance with Executive Order 13112 and Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the landscaping and erosion control included in the project will not use species listed as invasive. In areas of particular sensitivity, extra precautions will be taken if invasive species are found in or next to the construction areas. These include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and eradication strategies to be implemented should an invasion occur. A weed abatement program shall be developed to minimize the importation of nonnative plant material during and after construction. At a minimum, this program shall include the following measures. During construction, the construction contractor shall inspect and clean construction equipment at the beginning and end of each day and prior to transporting equipment from one project location to another. During construction, soil and vegetation disturbance will be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. During construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that all active portions of the construction site are watered a minimum of twice daily or more often when needed due to dry or windy conditions to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that all material stockpiled is sufficiently watered or covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During construction, soil/gravel/rock will be obtained from weed-free sources. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.22-4 Only certified weed-free straw, mulch, and/or fiber rolls will be used for erosion. The project has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and exiting of construction equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, and by the improper removal and disposal of invasive species so that seed is spread along the highway. The following measures will be implemented to mitigate the potential of invasive species from spreading from or into the project area: Bare soil will be landscaped with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommended seed mix from locally adapted species, where feasible, to preclude the invasion of noxious weeds. The use of site-specific materials, which are adapted to local conditions, increases the likelihood that revegetation will be successful and maintain the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. Arrangements shall be made well in advance of planting (9 months, if possible) to ensure that plant materials are located and available for the scheduled planting time. Sufficient time should be allocated for a professional seed company to visit the project site during the appropriate season and collect the native plant seed. If local propagules are not available or cannot be collected in sufficient quantities, materials collected or grown from other sources within Southern California shall be substituted. For widespread native herbaceous species that are more likely to be genetically homogeneous, site specificity is a less important consideration and seed from commercial sources may be used. Seed purity shall be certified by planting seed labeled under the California Food and Agricultural Code or that has been tested within a year by a seed laboratory certified by the Association of Official Seed Analysts or by a seed technologist certified by the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists. Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds (before mobilizing to arrive at site and before leaving site). Trucks with loads carrying vegetation shall be covered and vegetative materials removed from the site shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. After construction, all revegetated areas will avoid the use of species listed on California Invasive Plant Council’s California Invasive Plant Inventory that have a high or moderate rating. Erosion control and revegetation sites will be monitored for 2 to 3 years after construction to detect and control the introduction/invasion of nonnative species. Eradication procedures (e.g., spraying and/or hand weeding) will be outlined should an infestation occur; the use of herbicides will be prohibited within and adjacent to native vegetation, except as specifically authorized by the Caltrans District 8 Biologist. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-1 2.23 Cumulative Impacts 2.23.1 Regulatory Setting Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. A cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential, commercial, industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural development and the conversion to more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. These land use activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations, alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of predators. They can also contribute to potential community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15130, describes when a cumulative impact analysis is warranted and what elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. The definition of cumulative impacts, under CEQA, can be found in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. A definition of cumulative impacts, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), can be found in 40 CFR, Section 1508.7 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations. 2.23.2 Affected Environment The project site is in Riverside County, California, on Interstate 15 (I-15) at the existing Railroad Canyon Road and planned I-15/Franklin Street interchanges. The project limits are along I-15 and extend from 1,000 feet (ft) northwest of Main Street to approximately 6,000 ft south of the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. The I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange provides local access to a portion of the City of Lake Elsinore as well as the surrounding Cities of Canyon Lake and Menifee in the northeast and the City of Wildomar to the south. Existing land uses around the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange include numerous retail establishments, hotels, and office complexes as well as multifamily and single-family residences. Existing land use within the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange primarily consists of vacant land and single-family residences. 2.23.3 Methodology The cumulative impact analysis for the project was developed by following the eight-step process as set forth in the California Department of Transportation Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis (2005). The eight-step process is as follows: Identify project-specific resources to be analyzed; Define the resource study area for each resource; Describe the current health and historical context for each resource; Identify direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project that might contribute to a cumulative impact on identified resources; Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-2 Identify other reasonably foreseeable actions that affect each resource; Assess potential cumulative impacts; Report results; and Assess the need for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation and /or recommendations for actions by other agencies to address the cumulative impact. As specified in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, if the proposed project would not result in a direct or indirect impact to a resource, it would not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource. This cumulative impact analysis includes resources that are substantially affected by the project and resources that are currently in poor or declining health, or at risk even if the project’s impacts to that resource would not be substantial. The reasonably foreseeable actions used in this cumulative analysis were based on information provided by the City of Lake Elsinore (City), which identified approved and pending developments in proximity to the project area. Examples of reasonably foreseeable actions included future development for which a General Plan or Specific Plan has been adopted that designates future land uses; projects for which the applicable jurisdiction has received an application for site development; or infrastructure improvement projects approved or planned by local jurisdictions or other public agencies. 2.23.4 Resources Excluded from Cumulative Impacts Analysis The project (Build Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) includes ramp improvements and reconfigurations to the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. All Build Alternatives also include the construction of a new freeway interchange north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing. All interchange improvements and construction would occur in the City of Lake Elsinore. Based on the nature of the project, the nature of the project area, and the technical studies prepared for this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA), the following resources would not be substantially affected by the project and are not at risk: Land Use. The interchange improvements, construction of a new interchange, local street improvements, and conversion of the impacted residential and commercial properties to transportation uses to accommodate Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with local and regional goals to improve traffic operations and reduce congestion in the area. Growth. The Build Alternatives would improve existing and future traffic operations, reduce congestion, and accommodate existing and future planned growth. Build Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not have an adverse effect on growth in the surrounding area. Utilities and Emergency Services. Utilities and emergency services would only be affected during the construction period. The project would not result in permanent impacts to utilities or emergency services. Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would improve traffic operations and reduce congestion. Pedestrian access would be maintained and bicycle lanes would be provided consistent with the City’s General Plan. Construction-related traffic impacts would be avoided or minimized through implementation of a comprehensive Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-3 Visual/Aesthetics. The Build Alternatives would not substantially change the existing views of and from the existing I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange or the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange. Cultural Resources. Although the record search conducted for the project indicated numerous previously recorded cultural resources in the study area, none would be affected by the project. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not affect known historic properties. While cultural resources in the study area outside the Area of Potential Effects (APE) may be directly or indirectly affected by other projects, the project would not directly or indirectly affect those resources. Hydrology and Floodplain. The Build Alternatives would make minor modifications to existing drainage and flood control channels. Temporary impacts would be avoided or minimized through implementation of erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Therefore, neither alternative would result in permanent impacts to drainages or floodplains. Geology and Soils. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not result in substantial temporary impacts. Temporary impacts would be avoided or minimized through implementation of soil management BMPs. Neither alternative would result in permanent impacts to soils. Air Quality. None of the Build Alternatives would result in a violation of existing air quality standards. Temporary impacts would be minimized through implementation of dust control and equipment handling measures. Plant Species. No sensitive plant species would be temporarily or permanently affected by the Build Alternatives. 2.23.5 Resources Evaluated for Cumulative Impacts The following resource areas have the potential to be adversely affected by the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with the potential impacts of the reasonably foreseeable actions described above: Community impacts Water quality and storm water runoff Paleontology Air Quality Wetlands and Other Waters Animal Species Threatened or Endangered Species 2.23.6 Environmental Consequences The following discussion of potential cumulative impacts is presented by environmental resource area. No cumulative impact discussion is provided for the No Build Alternative because the No Build Alternative would not result in either temporary or permanent changes to the environment that could contribute to cumulative impacts. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-4 2.23.6.1 Community Impacts This section is based on the information from the following documents prepared for the project: Community Impact Assessment (December 2010) Supplemental Memorandum to the Community Impact Assessment (December 2011) Second Supplemental Memorandum to the Community Impact Assessment (January 2015) Third Supplemental Memorandum to the Community Impact Assessment (February 2015) The cumulative resource study area (RSA) for community impacts comprises Census Tract 427.15, Census Tract 430.01, Census Tract 430.06, and Census Tract 464.04 in the City of Lake Elsinore. These census tracts could be reasonably affected by land acquisition, construction impacts, or displacements. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Direct Impacts Temporary road detours and access restrictions during construction would affect residents in the vicinity of the project census tract limits. However, those temporary impacts would be substantially minimized by implementation of a TMP. Substantial disruptions to the local neighborhoods in the project area during construction are not anticipated. Alternative 2 would require the partial acquisition of 53 parcels (39 residentially zoned parcels and 14 commercially zoned parcels). Alternative 2 would also require the full acquisition of 12 residentially zoned parcels totaling 184,276 square feet (sf), including one single-family residence in the northwest quadrant of the planned I-15/Franklin Street interchange in the City. Because the project would require the acquisition of a developed residential property, it would result in the displacement of this property’s residents. However, it is not anticipated that the project would permanently divide the community itself since the area of permanent acquisitions is planned for redevelopment under the City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency. Under any of the Build Alternatives, only one residence would require relocation. As reported in the 2010 Census, a higher percentage of the residents who reside within the study area census tract for which the full residential acquisition would occur (Census Tract 430.01) are elderly, transit-dependent, or home–owners in comparison to the City of Lake Elsinore; this census tract demonstrates indicators of an area with a high potential for community cohesion. However, given the large size of the census tract incorporating multiple neighborhoods, it is likely that the residents could be relocated within their existing community. Therefore, no impacts to community cohesion would occur. Because the overall proportions of minority and low-income persons in the project area census tracts are comparable to those within the City of Lake Elsinore, Alternative 2 would not result in temporary construction or permanent impacts that are predominantly borne by a minority or low- income population, nor would the project-related impacts be appreciably more severe to these populations. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not have disproportionately high or adverse direct impacts to minority populations, low-income, or transit-dependent residents within the reference populations, per Executive Order (EO) 12898 regarding environmental justice. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-5 Indirect Impacts Temporary indirect impacts to the community as a result of access restrictions and road detours during construction are not anticipated. Therefore, permanent indirect impacts to the surrounding community associated with displacements are not anticipated. Cumulative Direct Impacts The reasonably foreseeable projects identified by the City are infill projects on vacant properties or existing facilities (in the case of the transportation projects). Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be no displacements associated with these projects. Like the project, these projects are within the study area census tracts whose low-income and minority population percentages are consistent with the percentages in the City as a whole. Although Alternative 2 involves one residential displacement, it is consistent with approved plans that have focused on compatible surrounding land uses for economic/employee and residential/resident benefits. For these reasons, cumulative direct community impacts would not be adverse under this alternative. Cumulative Indirect Impacts Because the project is consistent with approved land use plans, indirect cumulative community impacts are not anticipated. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Alternative 3 would require the acquisition of residential and commercial properties, resulting in the displacement of those residents and employees. Impacts associated with residential displacement would be the same for Alternative 3 as those identified for Alternative 2 because the same residential unit would be displaced under either alternative. As identified in Alternative 2, given the large size of the census tract incorporating multiple neighborhoods, it is likely that the residents could be relocated within their existing community. Under Alternative 3, two businesses would be displaced by the project. Due to the current fragmented nature of this cluster of commercial properties (due to other land uses interspersed with the properties), these business acquisitions would not divide an existing neighborhood or fragment the edge of a cohesive group of people. In addition, the majority of acquisitions would consist of vacant properties bordering the I-15 southbound off-ramp for the proposed I- 15/Franklin Street interchange or Casino Drive for the proposed I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. Therefore, no adverse direct or indirect cumulative impacts to community cohesion would occur with this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 would require the acquisition of one residential property, resulting in the displacement of those residents. Impacts associated with residential displacement would be the same for Alternative 4 as those identified for Alternative 2 because the same residential unit would be displaced under either alternative. As identified in Alternative 2, given the large size of the census tract incorporating multiple neighborhoods, it is likely that the residents could be relocated within their existing community. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-6 2.23.6.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) (June 2010) Water Quality Assessment Supplemental Memorandum (January 2015) In the City and surrounding unincorporated County area, drainage is directed from east to west, south to north (south of Railroad Canyon Road to the San Jacinto River and from 1,200 ft north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to Main Street) and north to south (1,200 ft north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to the San Jacinto River). A series of south-north channels and underground storm drains transport drainage to the San Jacinto River or the Temescal Creek. The project area is located within the San Jacinto Valley watershed of the Lake Elsinore-San Jacinto River Basin (Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA) Hydrology Unit 802.31) and Temescal Creek (Reach 5). The only major drainage facility, the San Jacinto River, crosses I-15 north of the Railroad Canyon undercrossing and ultimately drains into Lake Elsinore. The distance from Lake Elsinore to the project site is approximately 0.5 mile. The RSA for water quality and storm water runoff is the San Jacinto Valley watershed of the San Jacinto River Basin, which is a part of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The most serious regional issue in the Santa Ana River Watershed is degradation of water quality by nitrogen and total dissolved solids (TDS). Historically, the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries flowed year-round; however, diversion for irrigation has resulted in decreased flow and groundwater recharge. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Direct Impacts Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During project-related construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked, and may have the potential to be transported off the project site in storm water runoff into receiving waters. Under the General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, construction that would occur under Alternative 2 would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and implement construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would be designed to minimize erosion and prevent spills. Alternative 2 would alter the land use in the project area, replacing vacant, commercial, and residential uses with transportation uses that would change the concentrations of pollutants in storm water runoff. Runoff from the project area would be expected to contain higher concentrations of metals and oil and grease and lower levels of bacteria, viruses, nutrients, and pesticides compared to existing conditions. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-7 As part of Alternative 2, BMPs would be implemented to target constituents of concern in storm water runoff from the project area. The project would not contribute to dry-weather runoff. Potential Treatment BMPs include biofiltration swales, media filters, and/or detention basins. The Treatment BMPs would target constituents of concern from transportation facilities and would provide a water quality benefit. Indirect Impacts Potential indirect water quality impacts include degradation of downstream waters or aquatic species. For example, aquatic habitats are sensitive to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels, turbidity, nutrients, and toxicity associated with urban runoff. Because project Treatment BMPs would target constituents of concern from transportation facilities, and existing storm water runoff from the interchange is not currently treated, indirect impacts are not anticipated. Cumulative Impacts The existing trend of urbanization of the watershed is projected to continue. The continued conversion of undeveloped land to transportation, commercial/industrial, or residential uses would result in hydromodification and increased loading of pollutants into surface waters and indirectly into groundwater. It would also introduce new sources of pollutants associated with the new land uses. Land use changes can result in increased pollutant loading. To counteract the impacts associated with increased development, each project must undergo review by the Lead Agency for compliance with NPDES permits for construction activities, groundwater dewatering, and project operations, as well as compliance with local urban runoff ordinances. For projects within Caltrans jurisdiction, this would include compliance with the Caltrans NPDES Permit (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), and the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). For projects within City of Lake Elsinore jurisdiction, this would include compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NPDES permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS 618033). For other reasonably foreseeable projects, this includes compliance with the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as specified in local ordinances. BMPs must be employed in site design to reduce sources of pollutants and to treat storm water runoff. Direct Impacts The purpose of the NPDES permit program is to protect and restore the beneficial uses of receiving waters. Compliance with the NPDES program, based on land use and pollutants of concern, is considered sufficient to minimize impacts to water quality. Because Alternative 2 involves improvements to an existing freeway facility and includes treatment measures that currently do not exist, the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct water quality impacts. Indirect Impacts Because the treatment of storm water would reduce impacts to downstream waters and aquatic species, indirect cumulative impacts are not anticipated. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-8 ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect impacts. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect impacts. 2.23.6.3 Paleontology This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (April 2010) Paleontological Resources Addendum Memorandum (Memorandum) (February 2015) The RSA for paleontology is the northern portion of the Elsinore Trough. The Elsinore Trough is a structural feature created by shearing along branches of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The Elsinore Fault is located along the west margin of the Perris Block, separating the latter from the Santa Ana Mountains of the Peninsular Range Physiographic Province to the south. Geologic mapping indicates that the project area is located on deposits of late Holocene Alluvium and Holocene to late Pleistocene Alluvium (Qa and Qya) primarily derived from the west-flowing Santa Ana River. The geotechnical report indicates that excavation for the project will encounter Holocene to late Pleistocene deposits of sand and silt mixtures with some gravels (Qyf, Qyf1) and Old Pleistocene Alluvium (Qo), which is primarily sand and silt mixed with gravel stringers. These fossiliferous sediments crop out at the surface and may also be encountered below surface under most of the project. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Direct Impacts Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to paleontological resources. The potential impacts to paleontological resources would be permanent impacts. As discussed above, the project area has the potential for significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources to be encountered at depths greater than 3 ft below ground surface (bgs). Potentially fossiliferous sediments may be encountered during excavation for the project, which is currently estimated to be up to 7 ft bgs for normal excavation and deeper if cast-in- drilled-hole (CIDH) or driven piles are used for bridge supports. However, CIDH piles and driven piles are not conducive to the collection of paleontological resources, as the resources would usually not be visible and there would be no way to safely collect resources. Construction of some features of Alternative 2 would primarily be restricted to artificial fill or areas that cannot be physically monitored; however, it is very likely that sensitive sediments will be encountered during construction of the planned improvements. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-9 Indirect Impacts Impacts to paleontological resources are direct in nature; the physical impact to one resource does not indirectly affect another. Therefore, no indirect impacts would occur. Cumulative Direct Impacts All the reasonably foreseeable projects with deep excavation into Pleistocene Alluvium have the potential to result in adverse direct impacts to paleontological resources. Alternative 2 is required to implement a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP), which includes monitoring and recovery of paleontological resources that are found during project construction. A PMP will be required for every project with high-sensitivity sediments that is subject to Caltrans’ oversight. For other projects, implementation of and adherence to a Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program would be required to minimize impacts to resources within high-sensitivity sediments. Because Alternative 2 includes this requirement, this project’s contribution to cumulative paleontological resources impacts would not be considerable. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect paleontological resource impacts. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect paleontological resource impacts. 2.23.6.4 Air Quality This section is based on the following documents prepared for the project: Air Quality Report (March 2015) Air Quality Conformity Analysis (June 2017) The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes Orange County and the non-desert parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. For the purpose of this analysis, the RSA for air quality is the area immediately adjacent to the I-15 project limits that would be directly affected by construction emissions and vehicle emissions from operation of the completed project. Ambient air quality data in the RSA, as summarized in Table 2.15.A, show that CO, SO2, and NO2 levels are below the relevant State and Federal standards at the Lake Elsinore and Rubidoux Stations. One-hour ozone levels exceeded the State standards in each of the past 3 years. Eight-hour ozone levels exceeded the federal standard in each of the past 3 years. The PM10 levels in the RSA did not exceed State or Federal 24-hour concentration standards in the past 3 years; however the annual average concentration of PM10 exceeded the State standard in each of the past 3 years. The PM2.5 levels in the RSA exceeded the Federal 24-hour concentration standard in each of the past 3 years, as well as the State and Federal annual average concentration standards for each of the past 3 years. It should be noted that exceedance of a standard is not necessarily a violation, especially for many Federal standards. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-10 An important consideration in considering the potential for cumulative air quality impacts of the project is that the project is listed in the 2016 financially constrained RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1, which was found to conform to the SIP by the SCAG on April 12, 2017, and FHWA and FTA made a regional conformity determination finding on May 12, 2017. The project is also included in the SCAG financially constrained 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program in Amendment 17-03, page 4, for which FHWA and FTA also made a regional conformity determination finding on May 12, 2017. The reasonably foreseeable actions would occur in the areas where cumulative projects would be constructed that are located throughout the City. Projects with particular relevance to air quality impacts are shown in Table 2.1.A and include construction projects, projects that would result in an increase in vehicle trips and traffic congestion, and projects that would result in additional stationary source emissions. ALL BUILD ALTERNATIVES Direct and Indirect Impacts Construction. All Build Alternatives would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities would result in emissions of ROGs, CO, NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Maximum project construction emissions for Alternative 2 are identified in Table 2.15.C. As shown in Table 2.15.C, maximum daily construction emissions of criteria pollutants do not exceed daily SCAQMD significance thresholds for each criteria pollutant. With the implementation of standard construction measures (providing 50 percent effectiveness) such as frequent watering (e.g., minimum twice per day) and Minimization Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, presented in Section 2.15.4, fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities would be minimized. No significant impacts related to a violation of an air quality standard or a substantial contribution to and existing or proposed air quality violation would occur with implementation of any of the Build Alternatives. The project is located in Riverside County, which is not among the counties listed as containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. There are no impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos. Operation. The Build Alternatives were also evaluated for long term operational emissions of CO, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and MSATs. Because these long-term operational air quality analyses are based upon the 2040 traffic forecasts which include future population and employment growth as well as future transportation improvement projects, the analysis provided in Section 2.15.3.3 is already cumulative in nature. As concluded in Section 2.15.3.3 following the CO protocol, the project is not expected to result in any concentrations exceeding the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. As previously discussed in Section 2.15.3.3, the project-level particulate matter hot-spot analysis was presented to SCAG‘s TCWG for discussion and review on February 24, 2015. This project was approved and concurred on by Interagency Consultation at the TCWG meeting as Not a Project of Air Quality Concern. Therefore, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions resulting from the project would not be cumulatively considerable.. Lastly, under each Build Alternative there may 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 new roadway sections that would be built at the new Franklin Street overcrossing, under all Build Alternatives. However, even if these increases do occur, they too will be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA's vehicle Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-11 and fuel regulations. Therefore, under all Build Alternatives in the design year, it is expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No Build Alternative, due to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, and due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs. Cumulative Impacts All the reasonably foreseeable projects have the potential to result in emissions from project construction; however, all land development and public infrastructure projects are required to comply with SCAQMD requirements for construction emissions; therefore, this project’s contribution to cumulative construction emissions impacts would not be considerable. Because the project is not expected to result in any concentrations exceeding the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards and the project is not a Project of Air Quality Concern for particulate matter emissions, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions resulting from the project would not be cumulatively considerable. Because there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, 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 cumulative impacts associated with MSAT emissions would occur as a result of the project. 2.23.6.5 Wetlands and Other Waters The cumulative study area for wetlands and other waters is western Riverside County, specifically the Santa Ana River and San Jacinto River watersheds. Historically, the health of this resource has declined as over 80 percent of historical wetlands in California have been destroyed. Major loss of wetland habitat occurred during the mid-1950s to mid-1970s but, since then, the rate of loss has decreased. Currently, the health of this resource is determined to a large extent by the effectiveness of federal restoration efforts. Approximately 60 percent of western Riverside County (752,870 acres out of the 1,258,780 acres) within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Plan Area is reasonably foreseeable for development, based on anticipated impacts projected by the MSHCP within the next 75 years. Planned activities that are covered under the MSHCP include seven types of roadways, freeways, Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors, and other major facilities that have been identified in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element, flood control facilities, waste/wastewater facilities, electrical utility facilities, and natural gas facilities. The guidelines in the MSHCP include design criteria that avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive habitats known to occur in the vicinity of planned development and planned roadways, including riparian and riverine environments. ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Direct Impacts Alternative 2 would permanently affect 0.211 acre of potential jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. No wetland waters of the United States (U.S.) would be affected. In addition, 0.280 acre of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulated streambed would be permanently affected by the project. Permits will be required for project effects and include a CWA Section 404 permit authorization from the United States Air Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. With implementation of identified measures in Section 2.16.4, the potential permanent project Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-12 impacts to potential USACE non-wetland waters and CDFW jurisdictional areas would not be adverse. Indirect Impacts There is the potential for temporary indirect water quality impacts through sediment introduction and transport downstream under Alternative 2. Identification and implementation of erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention BMPs in the SWPPP (refer to Section 2.11) for the project would avoid or minimize indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters during construction. With implementation of the measures outlined in Section 2.18.4, in addition to the water quality measures presented in Section 2.11, potential temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters would not be adverse under this alternative. Cumulative Direct Impacts The cumulative projects in the project area would be subject to similar mitigation requirements as the project. Because each cumulative project would be required to replace impacted wetlands and non-wetland waters, additional mitigation for cumulative effects of the project is not required. Therefore, this project’s contribution to cumulative wetland and other waters resource impacts would not be considerable. Cumulative Indirect Impacts No indirect cumulative impacts are associated with this resource. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect impacts associated with wetlands or other waters. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect impacts associated with wetlands or other waters. 2.23.6.6 Animal Species ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET The BSA for animal species is Western Riverside County. Historically, the health of this resource has been degraded by development over time. Since its approval in 2004, implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP allows for development of covered activities while maintaining the health of this resource by providing for conservation of species and habitats and a coordinated system of linkages that provides for wildlife connectivity between conservation areas. The MSHCP provides guidelines that would avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive animal habitats known to occur in the vicinity of planned development and planned roadways while permitting continued development and the construction, operation, and maintenance of roadways. Direct Impacts Alternative 2 would require ground disturbance and modification to existing freeway and local street structures. These construction activities could result in impacts to suitable nesting habitat for several bird species. With implementation of identified measures, potential temporary Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-13 impacts during project construction to migratory birds would not be adverse. The potential impacts to these biological resources would be both temporary and permanent impacts. Ongoing development in the project area would further reduce the range and number of special- status species. These species have no official status, but under CEQA they require consideration. However, due to the marginal, disturbed nature of the existing habitat conditions within the BSA, the project would not have substantial effects on these species. Indirect Impacts Much of the habitat within the project study area has been fragmented by existing I-15 and residential and commercial development. I-15 is a regional barrier to east and west wildlife movement through the BSA and surrounding areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that no indirect impacts would occur under this alternative. Cumulative Direct Impacts Adverse effects to burrowing owl may occur as a result of impacts to potentially suitable habitat and/or nesting sites on the project site. The MSHCP is designed to mitigate for impacts to covered species and habitat on a regional scale. Through participation in the MSHCP and implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified above, no substantial cumulative effects are anticipated to occur to burrowing owl or its habitat. Cumulative Indirect Impacts Potential indirect biological resource impacts include degradation of adjacent habitat, night lighting from other projects in the area, and an increase in traffic noise. However, the MSHCP is designed to mitigate for impacts to covered species and habitat on a regional scale. Through participation in the MSHCP and implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, no substantial cumulative effects are anticipated to occur. ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect special-status animal species impacts. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect special-status animal species impacts. 2.23.6.7 Threatened and Endangered Species The RSA for threatened and endangered species is Western Riverside County. Historically, the health of this resource has been degraded by development over time. Threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): 16 United States Code (USC), Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 CFR Part 402 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. Project proponents are required to consult with the USFWS and the CDFW to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-14 ALTERNATIVE 2: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET Direct Impacts Two pairs of least Bell’s vireos (LBV) were found within the Biological Study Area (BSA) within the San Jacinto River during spring 2009 focused surveys conducted in support of the 2010 Natural Environment Study (NES). The LBV territories are not within, but adjacent to the proposed construction limits, and critical habitat for the LBV is not present within the BSA. Therefore, no direct effects to the LBV or its habitat would occur as a result of the project. No signs or critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) occur within the BSA. No direct impacts to the SWWF would occur under Alternative 2. Under Section 7 of the FESA, the project poses a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” through removal of potentially occupied habitat. However, the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, February 1995) provides full mitigation for impacts under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and FESA. Therefore, with implementation of Measure TE-1, potential temporary impacts during project construction to Stephens’ kangaroo rat would be reduced. Indirect Impacts In the future, there may be an increase of traffic noise and additional nighttime light spill on the San Jacinto River, as well as the degradation of riparian habitat as a result of off-site development nearby, which may affect the LBV and SWWF indirectly. However, the MSHCP is designed to mitigate for impacts to covered species and habitat on a regional scale. Through participation in the MSHCP and implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified above, no substantial cumulative effects are anticipated to occur to the threatened or endangered species. The Stephens’ kangaroo rat is an MSHCP Covered Species, and the cumulative effects are addressed as part of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. Thus, the project would not have substantial cumulative effects to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. Cumulative Direct Impacts All the reasonably foreseeable projects with the potential to affect threatened or endangered species would be required to mitigate for the loss of the habitat or of the species itself. The project is required to implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for species affected by construction of the project. Such measures will be required for every project with impacts to threatened or endangered species that is subject to Caltrans’ oversight. Because the project includes these requirements and measures, this project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would not be considerable. Cumulative Indirect Impacts In the future, there may be an increase of traffic noise and additional nighttime light spill on the San Jacinto River, as well as the degradation of riparian habitat as a result of off-site development nearby. The MSHCP is designed to mitigate for impacts to covered species and habitat on a regional scale. Through participation in the MSHCP and implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified above, no substantial cumulative effects are anticipated to occur to nesting birds. Stephens’ kangaroo rat is an MSHCP Covered Species, and the cumulative effects are addressed as part of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. Thus, the project would not have substantial cumulative effects to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-15 ALTERNATIVE 3: NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO GRAPE STREET AND SOUTHBOUND HOOK RAMPS TO CASINO DRIVE The impacts associated with threatened or endangered species within the BSA would be the same for Alternative 3 as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, with implementation of identified measures, potential temporary indirect effects to the LBV, SWWF, and their habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. With implementation of Measure TE-1, potential temporary impacts during project construction to Stephens’ kangaroo rat would be reduced under this alternative. Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect threatened or endangered species impacts. ALTERNATIVE 4: ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE The impacts associated with threatened or endangered species within the BSA would be the same for Alternative 4 as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, with implementation of identified measures, potential temporary indirect effects to the LBV, SWWF, and their habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. With implementation of Measure TE-1, potential temporary impacts during project construction to Stephens’ kangaroo rat would be reduced under this alternative. Cumulative impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be the same as those identified for Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not contribute considerably to cumulative direct and indirect threatened or endangered species impacts. CEQA DISCUSSION XVIV. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project would have impacts that are individually limited but are not cumulatively considerable with mitigation and minimization measures. Adherence to Mitigation Measures AN-1, presented above in Section 2.20.4, PAL-1 (Section 2.13.4), and WET-3 (Section 2.18.4), and Minimization Measures WQ-1, WQ-2 (Section 2.11.4), AQ-1 through AQ-5 (Section 2.15.4), WET-1 through WET-3 (Section 2.18.4), and TR-1 (Section 2.7.4) would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant impact level. XVIV. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not have the potential to significantly adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of minimization measures. With the identified Minimization Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-7, presented above in Section 2.14.4, N-1 (Section 2.16.4), AQ-1 through AQ-5 (Section 2.15.4), and TR-1 (Section 2.7.4), which are standard requirements, these impacts would remain less than significant. 2.23.7 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No measures beyond those identified in Sections 2.1 through 2.23 are required to address the Build Alternative’s contribution to cumulative impacts. Those measures address both temporary and permanent impacts. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.23-16 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-1 2.24 Climate Change Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth’s climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research attributes these climatological changes to greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels. While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization’s in 1988, has led to increased efforts devoted to GHG emissions reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of GHGs generated by human activity, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a (s, s, s, 2 –tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane). In the U.S., the main source of GHG emissions is electricity generation, followed by transportation.1 In California, however, transportation sources (including passenger cars, light- duty trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles) are the largest contributors of GHG emissions.2 The dominant GHG emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion. Two terms are typically used when discussing how we address the impacts of climate change: “greenhouse gas mitigation” and “adaptation.” "Greenhouse gas mitigation" is a term for reducing GHG emissions to reduce or "mitigate" the impacts of climate change. “Adaptation" refers to planning for and responding to impacts resulting from climate change (such as adjusting transportation design standards to withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels). 2.24.1 Regulatory Setting This section outlines federal and State efforts to comprehensively reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources. 2.24.1.1 Federal To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide mobile-source GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision on the action or project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the threats that extreme weather, sea- level change, and other changes in environmental conditions pose to valuable transportation infrastructure and those who depend on it. FHWA therefore supports a sustainability approach that assesses vulnerability to climate risks and incorporates resilience into planning, asset management, project development and design, and operations and maintenance practices.3 This approach encourages planning for sustainable highways by addressing climate risks while 1 Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014. 2 Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 3 Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-2 balancing environmental, economic, and social values—“the triple bottom line of sustainability.”1 Program and project elements that foster sustainability and resilience also support economic vitality and global efficiency, increase safety and mobility, enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life. Addressing these factors up front in the planning process will assist in decision-making and improve efficiency at the program level, and will inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project-level decision-making. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT92, 102nd Congress H.R.776.ENR): With this act, Congress set goals, created mandates, and amended utility laws to increase clean energy use and improve overall energy efficiency in the United States. EPACT92 consists of 27 titles detailing various measures designed to lessen the nation's dependence on imported energy, provide incentives for clean and renewable energy, and promote energy conservation in buildings. Title III of EPACT92 addresses alternative fuels. It gave the U.S. Department of Energy administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light-duty alternative fuel vehicles required in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993. The primary goal of the Program is to cut petroleum use in the United States by 2.5 billion gallons per year by 2020. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (109th Congress H.R.6 (2005–2006): This act sets forth an energy research and development program covering: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Indian energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology. Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 USC Section 6201) and Corporate Average Fuel Standards: This act establishes fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles sold in the United States. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Federal Register 52117 (October 8, 2009): This federal EO set sustainability goals for federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy, and economic performance. It instituted as policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities. Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, 80 Federal Register 15869 (March 2015): This EO reaffirms the policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities. It sets sustainability goals for all agencies to promote energy conservation, efficiency, and management by reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions. It builds on the adaptation and resiliency goals in previous executive orders to ensure agency operations and facilities prepare for impacts of climate change. This order revokes Executive Order 13514. U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be 1 FHWA. Sustainable Highways Initiative. Website: https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/ overview.aspx. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-3 reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for EPA’s regulatory actions. U.S. EPA in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the first of a series of GHG emission standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles in April 20101 and significantly increased the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The standards required these vehicles to meet an average fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. In August 2012, the federal government adopted the second rule that increases fuel economy for the fleet of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond to average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Because NHTSA cannot set standards beyond model year 2021 due to statutory obligations and the rules’ long timeframe, a mid-term evaluation is included in the rule. The Mid-Term Evaluation is the overarching process by which NHTSA, EPA, and ARB will decide on CAFE and GHG emissions standard stringency for model years 2022–2025. NHTSA has not formally adopted standards for model years 2022 through 2025. However, the EPA finalized its mid-term review in January 2017, affirming that the target fleet average of at least 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 was appropriate. In March 2017, President Trump ordered EPA to reopen the review and reconsider the mileage target.2 NHTSA and EPA issued a Final Rule for “Phase 2” for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution in October 2016. The agencies estimate that the standards will save up to 2 billion barrels of oil and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 1.1 billion metric tons over the lifetimes of model year 2018–2027 vehicles. Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, of March 28, 2017, orders all federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane. 2.24.1.2 State With the passage of legislation including State Senate and Assembly bills and executive orders, California has been innovative and proactive in addressing GHG emissions and climate change. Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2002: This bill requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009-model year. Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005): The goal of this executive order (EO) is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1) year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) year 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below year 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 and Senate Bill 32 in 2016. 1 C2ES. EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation FAQ. Website: http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/ greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq. 2 NBC News.com. Website: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel- economy-standards-n734256 and Federal Register: Notice of Intention. Website: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/22/2017-05316/notice-of-intention-to-reconsider- the-final-determination-of-the-mid-term-evaluation-of-greenhouse. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-4 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Chapter 488, 2006: Núñez and Pavley, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: AB 32 codified the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals as outlined in EO S-3-05, while further mandating that ARB create a scoping plan and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” The Legislature also intended that the statewide GHG emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHGs beyond 2020 (Health and Safety Code Section 38551(b)). The law requires ARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. Executive Order S-20-06 (October 18, 2006): This order establishes the responsibilities and roles of the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and state agencies with regard to climate change. Executive Order S-01-07 (January 18, 2007): This order sets forth the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for California. Under this EO, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. ARB re-adopted the LCFS regulation in September 2015, and the changes went into effect on January 1, 2016. The program establishes a strong framework to promote the low-carbon fuel adoption necessary to achieve the Governor's 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), Chapter 185, 2007, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: This bill requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), Chapter 728, 2008, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection: This bill requires ARB to set regional emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for each region must then develop a "Sustainable Communities Strategy" (SCS) that integrates transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan how it will achieve the emissions target for its region. Senate Bill 391 (SB 391), Chapter 585, 2009, California Transportation Plan: This bill requires the State’s long-range transportation plan to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32. Executive Order B-16-12 (March 2012) orders State entities under the direction of the Governor, including ARB, the California Energy Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission, to support the rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. It directs these entities to achieve various benchmarks related to zero-emission vehicles. Executive Order B-30-15 (April 2015) establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It further orders all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets. It also directs ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). Finally, it requires the Natural Resources Agency to update the State’s climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California, every 3 years, and to ensure that its provisions are fully implemented. Senate Bill 32, (SB 32) Chapter 249, 2016, codifies the GHG reduction targets established in EO B-30-15 to achieve a mid-range goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-5 2.24.2 Environmental Setting In 2006, the Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California. AB 32 required ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB in 2008 and must be updated every 5 years. ARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. ARB is moving forward with a discussion draft of an updated Scoping Plan that will reflect the 2030 target established in EO B- 30-15 and SB 32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates contain the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, ARB released the GHG inventory for California.1 ARB is responsible for maintaining and updating California's GHG Inventory per Health and Safety Code Section 39607.4. The associated forecast/projection is an estimate of the emissions anticipated to occur in the year 2020 if none of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented. An emissions projection estimates future emissions based on current emissions, expected regulatory implementation, and other technological, social, economic, and behavioral patterns. The projected 2020 emissions provided in Figure 2.24.1 represent a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario assuming none of the Scoping Plan measures are implemented. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate assists ARB in demonstrating progress toward meeting the 2020 goal of 431 MMTCO2e.2 The 2017 edition of the GHG emissions inventory (released June 2017) found total California emissions of 440.4 MMTCO2e, showing progress towards meeting the AB 32 goals. The 2020 BAU emissions projection was revisited in support of the First Update to the Scoping Plan (2014). This projection accounts for updates to the economic forecasts of fuel and energy demand as well as other factors. It also accounts for the effects of the 2008 economic recession and the projected recovery. The total emissions expected in the 2020 BAU scenario include reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewable Electricity Standard (30 MMTCO2e total). With these reductions in the baseline, estimated 2020 statewide BAU emissions are 509 MMTCO2e. 1 ARB. 2017 Edition of the GHG Emission Inventory, released June 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 2 The revised target using Global Warming Potentials (GWP) from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-6 Figure 2.24.1: 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition 2.24.3 Project Analysis An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may contribute to a potential impact through its incremental change in emissions when combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG.1 In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(1) and 15130). To make this determination, the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and future projects to make this determination is a difficult, if not impossible, task. GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during operations and those produced during construction. The following represents a best faith effort to describe the potential GHG emissions related to the proposed project. 1 This approach is supported by the AEP: Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How to Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (March 5, 2007), as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Chapter 6: The CEQA Guide, April 2011) and the U.S. Forest Service (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, July 13, 2009). https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-7 Figure 2.24.2: Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On-Road CO2 Emissions Source: Matthew Barth and Kanok Boriboonsomsin, University of California, Riverside (May 2010) (http://uctc.berkeley.edu/research/papers/846.pdf). Four primary strategies can reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources: (1) improving the transportation system and operational efficiencies, (2) reducing travel activity, (3) transitioning to lower GHG-emitting fuels, and (4) improving vehicle technologies/efficiency. To be most effective all four strategies should be pursued concurrently. FHWA supports these strategies to lessen climate change impacts, which correlate with efforts that the State of California is undertaking to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. The highest levels of CO2 from mobile sources such as automobiles occur at stop-and-go speeds (0–25 miles per hour) and speeds over 55 miles per hour; the most severe emissions occur from 0–25 miles per hour (see Figure 2.24.2 above). To the extent that a project relieves congestion by enhancing operations and improving travel times in high-congestion travel corridors, GHG emissions, particularly CO2, may be reduced. The purpose of the project is to (1) relieve congestion by improving traffic operations and meet traffic demands through improvements of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, (2) correct the merging and diverging freeway and ramp improvements, (3) help achieve the Regional Mobility Plan goals of reducing emissions from transportation sources, and (4) enhance the efficiency of the interchange, thereby reducing congestion. SCAG included an SCS as part of its 2016 RTP/SCS. Under SB 375, the primary goal of the SCS is to provide a vision for future growth that will decrease per capita GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks. By providing improved interchange connections, the Build Alternatives would help achieve the improved access and mobility goals of SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS. Under SB 375, the primary goal of the SCS is to provide a vision for future growth that will decrease per capita GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks. By providing improved interchange connections, the Build Alternative would help achieve the improved access and mobility goals of SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-8 Due to the high cost of constructing Alternative 2, 3, or 4 improvements as one entire project, it was determined that the entire project could be divided into two viable cost-effective phased segments with logical termini. This resulted in identifying two separate phases as outlined below: Phase 1 – Construct the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange including ramp acceleration and deceleration lanes. Phase 2 – Construct the new I-15/Franklin Street interchange, including frontage roads, auxiliary lanes to Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road, and the southbound Main Street entrance ramps. Analyses of GHG emissions were performed for the following conditions: 2013 Existing Year 2019 Phase 1 Opening Year for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Phase 1 Failure Year for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Phase 2 Opening Year for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 2040 Design Year for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 Failure Year traffic volumes for the freeway, roadways, and intersections within the study area were developed using the methodology described in the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Report (November 2014). The Failure Year traffic volumes for the three Build Alternatives were determined once an LOS of “F” was developed at any of the study intersections. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (November 2014) calculated peak hour vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT) for all of the vehicle trips within the project area in 2013 (existing condition), 2019, 2032, and 2040. VMT during the p.m. peak hours was converted to total VMT per day using the industry-standard factor of 10. The traffic data, in conjunction with the EMFAC2014 emission model, were used to calculate the regional CO2 emissions for the 2013, 2019, 2032, and 2040 conditions. Regional CO2 emissions are presented in Table 2.24.A with the Pavley Standard. This fuel efficiency emission standard was designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009-model year. The net difference between the existing and build scenarios shows that even with the project, GHG emissions are predicted to decrease due mostly to the Pavley I requirements. Both the future with project and future no build conditions show increases in CO2 emissions over existing levels, but the Build Alternatives show decreases when compared to the No Build Alternative during the same future years. This is due to both reduced congestion associated with the improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange and the construction of a new interchange 0.22 mile north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing in the City of Lake Elsinore, as well as improvements in vehicle technology. The future Build Alternatives CO2 emissions are slightly lower than the future No Build Alternative emissions and would not substantially alter the long-term GHG emissions in the region. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-9 Table 2.24.A: Modeled Annual CO2 Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled, by Alternative Alternative CO2 Emissions (metric tons/year) Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled1 Existing/Baseline 2013 87,528 180,207,163 Open to Traffic 2019 (Phase 1) No Build (Alternative 1) 87,676 208,008,803 Build Alternative 2 87,134 206,722,474 Build Alternative 3 85,170 202,061,917 Build Alternative 4 87,676 208,008,803 Failure Year 2025 (Alt 4)/2032 (Alts 2 and 3) (Phase 1) No Build (Alternative 1) N/A N/A Build Alternative 2 (2032) 80,777 267,606,747 Build Alternative 3 (2032) 78,985 261,667,842 Build Alternative 4 (2025) 83,130 236,932,294 Open to Traffic 2025 (Alt 4)/2032 (Alts 2 and 3) (Phase 2) No Build (Alternative 1) N/A N/A Build Alternative 2 (2032) 80,647 267,168,139 Build Alternative 3 (2032) 80,119 265,424,117 Build Alternative 4 (2025) 82,345 234,694,491 20-Year Horizon/Design-Year 2040 No Build (Alternative 1) 85,797 302,687,406 Build Alternative 2 85,086 300,178,943 Build Alternative 3 84,530 298,216,658 Build Alternative 4 85,086 300,178,943 Source: EMFAC (2014). 1 Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) values derived from Daily VMT values multiplied by 347, per ARB methodology (ARB 2008). ARB = California Air Resources Board CO2 = carbon dioxide N/A = Not Applicable While EMFAC has a rigorous scientific foundation and has been vetted through multiple stakeholder reviews, its emission rates are based on tailpipe emission test data. The numbers are estimates of CO2 emissions and not necessarily the actual CO2 emissions. The model does not account for factors such as the rate of acceleration and the vehicles’ aerodynamics, which would influence CO2 emissions. To account for CO2 emissions, ARB’s GHG Inventory follows the IPCC guideline by assuming complete fuel combustion, while still using EMFAC data to calculate CH4 and N2O emissions. Though EMFAC is currently the best available tool for use in calculating GHG emissions, it is important to note that the CO2 numbers provided are only useful for a comparison of alternatives. 2.24.4 Construction Emissions Construction GHG emissions would result from material processing, on-site construction equipment, and traffic delays due to construction. These emissions will be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases. In addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans, and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction can be offset to some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation activities. During construction of the project, the combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Road Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-10 Construction Emissions Model (the same Roadway Construction Model for the criteria pollutants in Section 2.15 above), the maximum amount of construction-related GHG emissions generated would be approximately 1,811 metric tons of CO2 equivalent during the total construction period. For Phase 1, the estimated construction duration is approximately 18 months. For Phase 2, the estimated construction duration is approximately 24 months. Annual GHG emissions during construction are estimated to be approximately 517 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. As discussed in Section 2.15, idling times would be restricted to 10 minutes in each direction for passenger cars during lane closures and 5 minutes for construction vehicles. Restricting idling times reduces harmful emissions from passenger cars and diesel-powered construction vehicles. 2.24.5 CEQA Conclusion As discussed above, both the future build alternatives and future no build conditions show increases in CO2 emissions over the existing levels; however, the future build CO2 emissions are lower than the future no build emissions. In addition, as discussed above, there are also limitations with EMFAC and with assessing what a given CO2 emissions increase means for climate change. Therefore, it is Caltrans’ determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to greenhouse gas emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a determination regarding significance of the project’s direct impact and its contribution on the cumulative scale to climate change. However, Caltrans is firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the following section. 2.24.6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies 2.24.6.1 Statewide Efforts In an effort to further the vision of California’s GHG reduction targets outlined in AB 32 and SB 32, Governor Brown identified key climate change strategy pillars (concepts). These pillars highlight the idea that several major areas of the California economy will need to reduce emissions to meet the 2030 GHG emissions target. These pillars are (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (2) increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the State's climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California. See Figure 2.24.3, below. The transportation sector is integral to the people and economy of California. To achieve GHG emission reduction goals, it is vital that we build on our past successes in reducing criteria and toxic air pollutants from transportation and goods movement activities. GHG emission reductions will come from cleaner vehicle technologies, lower-carbon fuels, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. One of Governor Brown's key pillars sets the ambitious goal of reducing today's petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent by 2030. Governor Brown called for support to manage natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils, so they can store carbon. These lands have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biological processes, and to then sequester carbon in above- and below-ground matter. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-11 Figure 2.24.3: The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals 2.24.6.2 Caltrans Activities Caltrans continues to be involved on the Governor’s Climate Action Team as the ARB works to implement EOs S-3-05 and S-01-07 and help achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. EO B-30- 15, issued in April 2015, and SB 32 (2016), set a new interim target to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The following major initiatives are underway at Caltrans to help meet these targets. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP 2040) The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan to meet our future mobility needs and reduce GHG emissions. The CTP defines performance-based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve our collective vision for California’s future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system. It serves as an umbrella document for all of the other statewide transportation planning documents. SB 391 (Liu 2009) requires the CTP to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32. Accordingly, the CTP 2040 identifies the statewide transportation system needed to achieve maximum feasible GHG emission reductions while meeting the State’s transportation needs. While MPOs have primary responsibility for identifying land use patterns to help reduce GHG emissions, CTP 2040 identifies additional strategies in Pricing, Transportation Alternatives, Mode Shift, and Operational Efficiency. CALTRANS STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN The Strategic Management Plan, released in 2015, creates a performance-based framework to preserve the environment and reduce GHG emissions, among other goals. Specific performance targets in the plan that will help to reduce GHG emissions include: Increasing percentage of non-auto mode share Reducing VMT per capita Reducing Caltrans’ internal operational (buildings, facilities, and fuel) GHG emissions Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-12 FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS In addition to developing plans and performance targets to reduce GHG emissions, Caltrans also administers several funding and technical assistance programs that have GHG reduction benefits. These include the Bicycle Transportation Program, Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancement Funds, and Transit Planning Grants. A more extensive description of these programs can be found in Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (2013). Caltrans Director’s Policy 30 (DP-30) Climate Change (June 22, 2012) is intended to establish a department policy that will ensure coordinated efforts to incorporate climate change into departmental decisions and activities. Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (April 2013) provides a comprehensive overview of activities undertaken by Caltrans statewide to reduce GHG emissions resulting from agency operations. 2.24.6.3 Project-Level GHG Reduction Strategies The following measures in Table 2.24.B will also be implemented in the project to reduce GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from the project. 1) Landscaping reduces surface warming, and through photosynthesis, decreases CO2. Landscaping would be provided where necessary within the corridor to provide aesthetic treatment, replacement planting, or mitigation planting for the project. The landscape planting would help offset potential CO2 emissions increase. 2) The project would incorporate the use of energy-efficient lighting, such as light-emitting diode (LED) traffic signals, to the extent feasible. LED bulbs—or balls, in the stoplight vernacular—cost $60 to $70 apiece but last 5 to 6 years, compared to the 1-year average lifespan of the incandescent bulbs previously used. The LED balls themselves consume 10 percent of the electricity of traditional lights, which will also help reduce the project’s CO2 emissions. 3) According to Caltrans Standard Specifications and Provisions, idling time for lane closure during construction is restricted to 10 minutes in each direction. In addition, the contractor must comply with Title 13, California Code of Regulations §2449(d)(3), which was adopted by ARB on June 15, 2008. This regulation restricts idling of construction vehicles to no longer than 5 consecutive minutes. Compliance with this regulation reduces harmful emissions from diesel-powered construction vehicles. 2.24.7 Adaptation Strategies “Adaptation strategies” refer to how Caltrans and others can plan for the effects of climate change on the state’s transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage—or, put another way, planning and design for resilience. Climate change is expected to produce increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, variability in storm surges and their intensity, and the frequency and intensity of wildfires. These changes may affect the transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as damage to roadbeds from longer periods of intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding and erosion; and inundation from rising sea levels. These effects will vary by location and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. These types of impacts to the transportation infrastructure may also have economic and strategic ramifications. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-13 2.24.7.1 Federal Efforts At the federal level, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the CEQ, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released its interagency task force progress report on October 28, 2011,1 outlining the federal government's progress in expanding and strengthening the nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other climate change impacts. The report provided an update on actions in key areas of federal adaptation, including: building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural resources such as fresh water, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision-makers manage climate risks. The federal Department of Transportation issued U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation in June 2011, committing to “integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely and that transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions.”2 To further the DOT Policy Statement, in December 15, 2014, FHWA issued order 5520 (Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events).3 This directive established FHWA policy to strive to identify the risks of climate change and extreme weather events to current and planned transportation systems. The FHWA will work to integrate consideration of these risks into its planning, operations, policies, and programs in order to promote preparedness and resilience; safeguard federal investments; and ensure the safety, reliability, and sustainability of the nation’s transportation systems. FHWA has developed guidance and tools for transportation planning that fosters resilience to climate effects and sustainability at the federal, state, and local levels.4 2.24.7.2 State Efforts On November 14, 2008, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S-13-08, which directed a number of state agencies to address California’s vulnerability to sea-level rise caused by climate change. This EO set in motion several agencies and actions to address the concern of sea-level rise and directed all state agencies planning to construct projects in areas vulnerable to future sea-level rise to consider a range of sea-level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100, assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea-level rise. Sea-level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with information on local uplift and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, and storm surge and storm wave data. Governor Schwarzenegger also requested the National Academy of Sciences to prepare an assessment report to recommend how California should plan for future sea-level rise. The final report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington (Sea-Level Rise 1 Obama White House. Website: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/ initiatives/resilience. 2 FHWA. Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policyand_guidance/ usdot.cfm. 3 FHWA. Order 5520. Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm. 4 FHWA. Sustainability. Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ . Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 2.24-14 Assessment Report)1 was released in June 2012 and included relative sea-level rise projections for the three states, taking into account coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, El Niño and La Niña events, storm surge, and land subsidence rates; and the range of uncertainty in selected sea- level rise projections. It provided a synthesis of existing information on projected sea-level rise impacts to State infrastructure (such as roads, public facilities, and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems; and a discussion of future research needs regarding sea-level rise. In response to EO S-13-08, the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency), in coordination with local, regional, State, federal, and public and private entities, developed The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (December 2009),2 which summarized the best available science on climate change impacts to California, assessed California's vulnerability to the identified impacts, and outlined solutions that can be implemented within and across State agencies to promote resiliency. The adaptation strategy was updated and rebranded in 2014 as Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (Safeguarding California Plan). Governor Jerry Brown enhanced the overall adaptation planning effort by signing EO B-30-15 in April 2015, requiring State agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions. In March 2016, sector-specific Implementation Action Plans that demonstrate how State agencies are implementing EO B-30-15 were added to the Safeguarding California Plan. This effort represents a multi-agency, cross-sector approach to addressing adaptation to climate change-related events statewide. EO S-13-08 also gave rise to the State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (SLR Guidance), produced by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT), of which Caltrans is a member. First published in 2010, the document provided “guidance for incorporating sea-level rise (SLR) projections into planning and decision making for projects in California,” specifically, “information and recommendations to enhance consistency across agencies in their development of approaches to SLR.” The March 2013 update3 finalizes the SLR Guidance by incorporating findings of the National Academy’s 2012 final Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report; the policy recommendations remain the same as those in the 2010 interim SLR Guidance. The guidance will be updated as necessary in the future to reflect the latest scientific understanding of how the climate is changing and how this change may affect the rates of SLR. Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk management to address vulnerabilities in the transportation system from increased precipitation, and flooding; the increased frequency and intensity of storms and wildfires; rising temperatures; and rising sea levels. Caltrans is actively engaged in working towards identifying these risks throughout the State and will work to incorporate this information into all planning and investment decisions as directed in EO B-30-15. The project is outside the Coastal Zone and is not in an area subject to sea-level rise. Accordingly direct impacts to transportation facilities due to projected sea level rise are not expected. 1 National Academies Press. 2012. Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012). Website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id=13389. 2 State of California. California Climate Adaption Strategy. Website: http://www.climatechange. ca.gov/adaptation/strategy/index.htm.l 3 State of California. Ocean Protection Council. Website: http://www.opc.ca.gov/2013/04/update-to-the- sea-level-rise-guidance-document/. I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-1 Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination Early and continuing coordination with the general public and appropriate public agencies involved in the Interstate 15 (I-15)/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project is an essential part of the environmental process to determine the scope of environmental documentation, the level of analysis necessary, potential impacts and mitigation measures, and related environmental requirements. The scoping process for the project focused on agency consultation and public participation accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including public information meetings, monthly project development team (PDT) meetings, interagency coordination meetings, and consultation with interested parties. This chapter summarizes the results of the efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve project- related issues through early and continuing coordination in the environmental process. 3.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultation The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is the project sponsor for this project. However, since the project would be constructed within State highway right-of-way, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the Lead Agency under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City has sought the assistance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to help facilitate project scheduling and coordination during the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase of this project. Once PA&ED is completed, the City is anticipated to administer all contracts under the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) and Construction phases of the project. The following sections and Table 3.A, Summary of Consultation and Coordination Activities, summarize the results of Caltrans’ efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve project-related issues through early and continuing coordination. 3.1.1 Native American Consultation and Coordination In July 2009, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was requested to review its Sacred Lands File for the project Area of Potential Effects (APE). In its July 14, 2009, correspondence, the NAHC stated that no Native American cultural resources or sacred sites are located within the project APE. Native American consultation was initiated in September 2009 with four Native American groups recommended by the NAHC. In total, four individuals representing the three Native American groups were contacted via certified mail and email on September 21, 2009, and on May 4, 2010. Letters were followed by telephone calls and emails during October and December 2009, with Caltrans continuing consultation into 2011. This correspondence provided a description of the project and a request for the identification of potential effects to any cultural resources, sacred lands, or other heritage sites within the project area. In September of 2009, Mr. Ontiveros (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians) indicated the project area is regarded as highly sensitive by the Soboba and requested Native American monitoring of the project, continuity of consultation, initiation of consultation with the project developer and landowner, and transmittal of information in the event of new developments. Caltrans responded to a Pechanga request for information pertaining to cultural resources within and adjacent to the project APE on November 4, 2010, and a request for an on-site meeting on February 24, 2011. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-2 Table 3.A: Summary of Consultation and Coordination Activities Timing Activity July 2009 Consultation with the NAHC was initiated. A search of the Sacred Lands File and a list of individuals/organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area were requested. July 2009 The NAHC responded and sent a list of Native American contacts in the vicinity of the project for further consultation. The records search of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. July 2009 A letter was sent to the USFWS requesting the list of proposed, threatened, or endangered species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project. September 2009 The USFWS sent a response letter and the Proposed, Threatened, or Endangered Species List for species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project. The list is provided in Appendix H of the Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) (LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010). August 2009 A records search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside in Riverside, California. The search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 1-mile radius of the project area, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports, and a search of the inventories of the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Caltrans Historic Highway Bridge Inventory. A total of 53 cultural resource studies were conducted within a 1 mile radius of the APE. One prehistoric resource, 27 archaeological resources, and 36 historic built resources were recorded as a result of these studies. One prehistoric resource was documented within the APE. February 2015 The project-level particulate matter hot-spot analysis was presented to the Southern California Association of Governments TCWG for discussion and review on February 24, 2015. Per Caltrans Headquarters policy, all nonexempt projects need to go through review by the TCWG. This project was approved and concurred on by Interagency Consultation at the TCWG meeting as Not a Project of Air Quality Concern. February 2017 A meeting was held with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the project and for compliance with AB 52 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. March 2017 A meeting was held with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the project and for compliance with AB 52 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. March 2017 Consultation with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to review the project’s consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This consultation also included a field visit with CDFW and USFWS. December 2016 – August 2017 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP. USFWS Section 7 Consultation/streamlined biological opinion is not necessary due to the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Sources: LSA Associates, Inc., Natural Environment Study Report (June 2017); Historical Property Survey Report (August 2011); and Air Quality Analysis (March 2015). AB = Assembly Bill NAHC = Native American Heritage Commission APE = area of potential effects TCWG = Transportation Conformity Working Group Caltrans = California Department of Transportation USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Ms. Hoover (Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians) expressed concern regarding the potential for impact to sites north of the project APE in February 2011. An on-site meeting was held on March 1, 2011, during which Ms. Hoover proposed spot-check monitoring. No additional Native American Consultation was conducted as part of the Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (January 2015). Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-3 3.1.1.1 Assembly Bill 52 Consultation Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted on July 1, 2015. AB 52 added a new requirement for Native American consultation under CEQA and recognized a new cultural resource type, the tribal cultural resource (TCR). Consultation letters were mailed on February 9, 2017, to the tribes who had originally consulted with Caltrans under Section 106 for this project. Two tribes responded and requested meetings to discuss the project. A meeting was held with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians on February 16, 2017, and a meeting was held with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians on March 1, 2017. Additional discussions with the Pechanga Band occurred on March 9, 2017. During the AB 52 consultation meetings, both tribes made very similar statements and requests. During the Section 106 cultural study, no cultural resources had been identified within the project footprint. In the years since the original study was conducted, cultural resources were discovered in the areas surrounding the project footprint. Because of the general sensitivity of the area surrounding the project footprint, both tribes have requested monitoring of any ground disturbance of native soils during construction. As project designs are finalized, additional review by the tribes may eliminate areas that require monitoring. 3.1.2 United States Army Corps of Engineers Based on email correspondence with Veronica Li, Senior Project Manager at the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), dated November 29, 2016, the USACE requested a follow-up site visit to verify that site conditions have not changed prior to submittal of the application for permit verification given the amount of time that has passed since the Jurisdictional Delineation was initially prepared. Final concurrence from the USACE is anticipated to occur during the Final Design phase of the project in conjunction with completing the Section 404 permit process. 3.1.3 Resource Agencies (United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Caltrans initiated a request for review for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency and the project’s Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) with the Resource Agencies on December 28, 2016, to assist with Section 7 Consultation. This consisted of a review of the project’s Natural Environment Study, the MSHCP Consistency Assessment Report, and the DBESP. Comments to these documents were received from John Taylor at the USFWS on February 13, 2017, which also requested additional clarification on several items in the project’s biological resources technical studies identified above. A copy of the comments/requests for clarification is provided below. In response to the comments and requests for clarification, Caltrans has updated the project’s Natural Environment Study, MSHCP Consistency Assessment Report, and DBESP addressing the comments and resubmitted the revised documents on June 30, 2017. This Final Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) has been updated to reflect the changes to the project’s Natural Environment Study, MSHCP Consistency Assessment Report, and DBESP. Resource Agency coordination also included receipt of a Species List from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, June 20, 2017). A copy of the Species List is provided below. June 20, 2017 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 Phone: (760) 431-9440 Fax: (760) 431-5901 http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2016-SLI-0802 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 Project Name: I-15 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Subject:Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ).et seq. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 ), Federal agencies are required toet seq. utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 06/20/2017 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 2 human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may requireet seq. development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List 06/20/2017 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 (760) 431-9440 06/20/2017 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 2 Project Summary Consultation Code:08ECAR00-2016-SLI-0802 Event Code:08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 Project Name:I-15 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project Type:TRANSPORTATION Project Description:The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with the City of Lake Elsinore and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes improvements to the Interstate 15 (I-15)/Railroad Canyon Road interchange (IC) and the construction of a new interchange 0.22 miles north of the existing I-15/Franklin Street overcrossing in the City of Lake Elsinore. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/33.66316334175849N117.29794011420526W Counties:Riverside, CA 06/20/2017 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 3 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 15 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. Mammals NAME STATUS San Bernardino Merriam's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2060 Endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus)) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3495 Endangered Birds NAME STATUS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178 Threatened Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945 Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749 Endangered Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Population: Pacific Coast population DPS-U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), Mexico (within 50 miles of Pacific coast) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035 Threatened 06/20/2017 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 4 Insects NAME STATUS Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti)) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5900 Endangered Crustaceans NAME STATUS Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8148 Endangered Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498 Threatened 06/20/2017 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2017-E-02166 5 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS California Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia californica) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4923 Endangered Munz's Onion (Allium munzii) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2951 Endangered San Diego Ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8287 Endangered San Jacinto Valley Crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4353 Endangered Spreading Navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1334 Threatened Thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) There is a designated for this species. Your location is outside the designatedfinalcritical habitat critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6087 Threatened Critical habitats There are no critical habitats within your project area. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-8 3.1.4 Transportation Conformity Working Group The project-level particulate matter hot-spot analysis was presented to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for discussion and review on February 24, 2015. As discussed in Section 2.15, Air Quality, per Caltrans Headquarters policy, all nonexempt projects need to be reviewed by the TCWG. This project was approved and concurred upon by the TCWG as not a Project of Air Quality Concern. A copy of the TCWG finding is provided below. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS February 24, 2015 Minutes 3.1-1 TCWG Minutes February 24, 2015 THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP. A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING IN SCAG’S OFFICE. The Meeting of the Transportation Conformity Working Group was held at the SCAG office in Los Angeles. In Attendance: Abrishami, Lori Metro Jaffery, Edison Caltrans, District 8 Louka, Tony Caltrans, District 8 Yaha, Randy Caltrans, District 8 Morris, Michael FHWA Sherwood, Arnie UC Berkeley SCAG Asuncion, John Luo, Rongsheng Tran, Daniel Via Teleconference: Alvarez, Grace RCTC Aurasteh, Reza Caltrans, District 12 Bai, Song Sonoma Technology Cacatian, Ben VCAPCD Castro, Fernando Caltrans, District 7 DeHate, Eric RCTC Gallo, Ilene Caltrans, District 11 Lay, Keith LSA Associates Moe-Luna, Lorelle RCTC Odufalu, Olufemi Caltrans, District 8 Philips, Heather ARB Tax, Wienke EPA Tavitas, Rodney Caltrans Headquarters Vaughn, Joseph FHWA Wade, Dennis ARB Wong, Jillian SCAQMD Wright, Larry OCTA TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS February 24, 2015 Minutes 3.1-2 TCWG Minutes February 24, 2015 1.0 CALL TO ORDER AND SELF-INTRODUCTION Tony Louka, TCWG Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:05 am. Mr. Louka acknowledged three former TCWG members - Stew Sonnenberg, FHWA; Cari Anderson, ARB; and Dr. Paul Fagan, formerly Caltrans District 8 - who recently left TCWG. Rongsheng Luo, SCAG, expressed appreciation and gratitude for their services and contribution to the TCWG and wished them best of luck in their new endeavors. 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There were no public comments. 3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 TCWG December 2, 2014 Meeting Minutes The meeting minutes were approved. 3.2 TCWG January 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes The meeting minutes were deferred to the next meeting. 4.0 INFORMATION ITEMS 4.1 Review of PM Hot Spot Interagency Review Forms 1) LA0G755 It was determined that this is not a POAQC (EPA concurrence received via email before the meeting). 2) RIV010206 It was determined that this is not a POAQC (EPA concurrence received via email before the meeting). 4.2 FTIP Update John Asuncion, SCAG, reported the following: 2015 FTIP Amendment #15-04 was under federal review for approval. 2015 FTIP Administrative Modification #15-05 was under SCAG review and expected to be approved soon. In response to a question, Michael Morris, FHWA, stated that 2015 FTIP Amendment #15-04 was anticipated to receive federal approval in about two weeks. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS February 24, 2015 Minutes 3.1-3 TCWG Minutes February 24, 2015 4.3 RTP Update Daniel Tran, SCAG, reported the following: SCAG staff was in the process of coding transportation network based on input from County Transportation Commissions and expected the coding to be completed in March. Draft 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was anticipated to be released for public review in fall 2015. Final 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was anticipated to be adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council in April 2016. In response to a question, Mr. Tran, SCAG, confirmed that 2015 FTIP Consistent Amendment #15-99 follows the same process and schedule as 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. 4.4 EPA Update Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, reported the following: EPA had published in Federal Register a proposed rule to find that South Coast had attained 1997 PM2.5 standards; Only one comment letter from Earthjustice was received; And the proposal was anticipated to be finalized in spring 2015. Published in Federal Register on January 15, 2015, final area designations for 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards will become effective April 15, 2015. Final SIP Implementation Rule for 2008 8-hour ozone standards was signed by EPA Administrator on February 13, 2015; Upon its effective date, expected in late March or early April 2015, 1997 8-hour ozone standards will be re-revoked for all purposes including transportation conformity; 1997 8-hour ozone standards had been previously revoked by EPA for transportation conformity purposes only; However, the EPA action was vacated by a court order in December 2014; as a result, transportation conformity requirements reapply for 1997 ozone standards until the re-revocation becomes effective. Proposed 2015 8-hour Ozone standards had been published in Federal Register and EPA is accepting public comments until March 17, 2015. Joseph Vaughn, FHWA, reported that FHWA can accept and review but cannot approve project-level conformity determinations for 1997 8-hour ozone standards until after effective date of re-revocation of 1997 ozone standards around late March or early April 2015. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS February 24, 2015 Minutes 3.1-4 TCWG Minutes February 24, 2015 4.7 ARB Update Heather Philips, ARB, reported the following: EMFAC2014 is expected to be submitted to U.S. EPA around March 2015; EPA staff had indicated that it will take EPA about three to six months to review for approval; and there will be a grace period for transition from EMFAC2011 to EMFAC2014. 4.8 Air Districts Update Jillian Baker, SCAQMD, reported that SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee discussed about EPA’s proposed revisions to 8-hour ozone standards and SCAMQD’s draft comment letter at its last meeting on February 20; Staff presentation and draft District comment letter are available on SCAQMD website at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/meeting-agendas-minutes/agenda?title=mobile- source-02202015. 5.0 INFORMATION SHARING Rodney Tavitas, Caltrans Headquarters, announced that Mr. Yoojoong Choi has taken over environmental analysis and transportation conformity responsibilities from Mr. Jim Elder. 6.0 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 am. The next Transportation Conformity Working Group meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at the SCAG office in downtown Los Angeles. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-11 3.1.5 Coordination with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Consultation with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to review the project’s consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP was initiated following public review of the Draft IS/EA on March 16, 2017. During the consultation, several concerns were raised related to potential impacts to threatened/endangered fairy shrimp species, bat species, and least Bell’s vireo (LBV). Based on the consultation, the following additional project environmental commitment, to address potential impacts related to threatened/endangered fairy shrimp species within depressional areas within the project limits, shall be implemented (see Measure TE-3 in Section 2.21.4 of this IS/EA): TE-3: To address potential impacts to listed fairy shrimp species potentially within depressional areas that would be affected by project implementation, the following program and implementation actions to be completed after approval of the Final IS/EA document but prior to any ground-disturbance activities within depressional areas that may be potentially affected by project implementation shall be required. Only one of the two options identified below is required to address potential impacts to listed fairy shrimp species potentially within depressional areas within the project limits: Option A 1) Conduct one single dry-season (i.e., no water present) fairy shrimp sampling within the depressional areas that would be affected by the project to determine if fairy shrimp cysts are present. The sampling shall require special authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If cysts are determined to be present, assume presence of listed fairy shrimp species within depressional areas that would be affected by project implementation without hatching the cysts. 2) Remove the top two inches of soil from these areas and translocate the soil to an area of fairy shrimp habitat creation to be determined in consultation with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The long- term management of the fairy shrimp habitat where soils will be translocated if listed fairy shrimp are found shall be the responsibility of the City. If the receptor site is not suitable due to insufficient area for placement outside of existing seasonal pool and smooth tarplant mitigation areas, the RCA would be willing to accept soils and long term management of the same if an appropriate RCA owned and managed receptor site can be identified. In order to minimize potential damage to fairy shrimp cysts, the soil must be dry when it is removed. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-12 3) Upon translocation of the soils as approved by the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, no additional measures for fairy shrimp will be required, and impacts to the depressional areas affected by project implementation may proceed. Option B 1) Conduct one single dry-season (i.e., no water present) fairy shrimp survey/sampling within the depressional areas that would be affected by the project. The survey/sampling shall require special authorization from the USFWS. 2) If fairy shrimp cysts are found during the survey/sampling, an attempt to hatch them shall be made. 3) If hatching is unsuccessful, or if hatching is successful and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) or San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) (i.e., listed fairy shrimp) are identified among the hatched fairy shrimp, the soil from the affected depressions shall be translocated to an area of existing fairy shrimp habitat to be determined in consultation with the RCA and approved by the USFWS and CDFW. The long-term management of the fairy shrimp habitat where soils will be translocated if listed fairy shrimp are found shall be the responsibility of the City. If the receptor site is not suitable due to insufficient area for placement outside of existing seasonal pool and smooth tarplant mitigation areas, the RCA would be willing to accept soils and long term management of the same if an appropriate RCA owned and managed receptor site can be identified. In order to minimize potential damage to fairy shrimp cysts, the soil must be dry when it is removed. 4) If hatching is successful and hatched fairy shrimp are all determined to be versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli, a common species), no additional measures for fairy shrimp shall be required, and impacts to the depressional areas affected by project implementation may proceed. Additionally, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address bats, identified below, will require that prior to construction, an agency- approved bat biologist will conduct a bat assessment to identify the potential for bat species to occur within the project limits. Should the presence of bats be determined during the assessment, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to reduce impacts, as described below, shall be implemented (see Measure AN-9 in Section 2.20.4 of this IS/EA). Prior to construction, an agency-approved bat biologist shall conduct a bat assessment survey to determine the presence or absence of bat species that may occur within the project limits. Should the presence of bat species be determined during this assessment, the following measures shall be implemented to address potential impacts to bats. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-13 Project-related construction activities shall occur outside of the bat maternity roosting season (April 1–August 31), if feasible. Should such activities occur during the maternity roosting season (April 1–August 31), the following measures shall be implemented to minimize potential impacts to day-roosting bats (including maternity colonies) from project construction. Nighttime exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed by a qualified bat biologist at all structures that may be subject to project-related impacts. These surveys shall be performed during the recognized bat maternity season (April 1– August 31, but preferably in June or July), and as far in advance of construction as possible in order to provide adequate time for mitigation planning. Construction activities at structures housing maternity colonies shall be coordinated with an agency-approved bat biologist and the CDFW. If direct impacts to bat-roosting habitat are anticipated, humane evictions and exclusions of roosting bats should be performed under the supervision of an agency-approved bat biologist after August 31 in the fall (September or October) prior to any work activities that would result in direct impacts or direct mortality to roosting bats. This action will be performed in coordination with the CDFW. To avoid potential mortality of flightless juvenile bats, evictions and exclusions of bats cannot be performed during the maternity season (April 1–August 31). Winter months are also inappropriate for bat eviction because not all individuals in a roost will emerge on any given night. In addition, long-distance movements to other roost sites are more difficult during the winter when prey availability is scarce, resulting in high mortality rates of evicted bats. Alternate bat-roosting habitat structures should be installed on the structure prior to the eviction/exclusion of bats from that structure. The design, numbers, and locations of these roost structures should be determined in consultation with an agency-approved bat biologist. If permanent, direct impacts to bat-roosting habitat are anticipated and a humane eviction/exclusion is performed, alternate permanent roosting habitat shall be provided to ensure no net loss of bat-roosting habitat. This action shall be coordinated with the CDFW, and locations of these roost structures should be determined in consultation with an agency-approved bat biologist to ensure that the installed habitat will provide adequate mitigation for impacts. The loss of a night roost can negatively affect the use of a foraging area, and consequently may result in reduced fecundity in species that are already slow to reproduce. If night roosting is confirmed at any of the structures within the proposed project area, the following measure to minimize potential impacts to night-roosting and foraging bats shall be implemented: At structures where night roosting is suspected or confirmed, work shall be limited to the daylight hours to the greatest extent feasible to avoid potential disruption of foraging. If night work cannot be avoided, night lighting shall be focused only on the area of direct work, airspace access to and from the roost features of the structure shall not be obstructed, and light spillover into the adjacent foraging areas shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Lastly, the identification of a specific buffer distance of 500 feet to address potential indirect impacts to the LBV within the identified territory of the LBV within the San Jacinto River during the LBV’s nesting season (March 15–September 1) was Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-14 recommended to be incorporated into Minimization Measure TE-1. This specified buffer distance would ensure that no adverse impacts to LBV would occur from project implementation. Although the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) was not observed during the 2009 focused survey, this species may utilize riparian habitat occupied by the LBV within the San Jacinto River. Revised Minimization Measure TE-1 for the LBV will also avoid and minimize any impact to SWWF as the SWWF breeding season is May 1 to August 31. TE-1 Prior to clearing or construction during the least Bell’s vireo nesting season (March 15 to September 1), highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) will be installed providing a minimum 500-foot buffer around riparian and riverine communities adjacent to the project footprint to be flagged as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to be preserved. The ESAs will serve as an exclusionary buffer delineating areas where no work shall be performed during the least Bell’s vireo nesting season. More specifically, no grading or fill activity of any type will be permitted within these ESAs. In addition, heavy equipment, including motor vehicles, will not be allowed to operate within the ESAs. All construction equipment will be operated in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to nearby preserved areas. No structure of any kind, or incidental storage of equipment or supplies, shall be allowed within these protected zones. Silt fence barriers will be installed at the ESA boundary to prevent accidental deposition of fill material in areas where vegetation is adjacent to planned grading activities. These special provisions shall be incorporated into the project’s specifications and construction documents. 3.2 Public Review The Draft IS/EA prepared for the project was circulated for public review and comment between January 12, 2017, and February 13, 2017. A Notice of Availability of an EA/Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Study Results Available/Announcement of Public Information Meeting was published in the following newspapers: Press-Enterprise (January 12, 2017) and La Prensa (January 13, 2017). There were multiple purposes served by these notices; they informed the public of all the following: the scheduled public information meeting on the Draft IS/EA, the availability of the Draft IS/EA for public review, the length of the public review period for the IS/EA, the locations at which the IS/EA was available, how the public could participate in the process, and where and how they could submit comments on the Draft IS/EA. The published notice was also mailed to the distribution list names included in Chapter 5 of this Final IS/EA, which included all occupants/owners of all addresses within a 500-foot radius of the project limits, including those property owners who could be potentially impacted by the property acquisitions. Additionally, compact disc copies of the Draft IS/EA were mailed to all property owners of parcels that, based on preliminary engineering efforts, might potentially need to be partially or fully acquired in conjunction with the project. The English and Spanish published notices Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-15 are provided below. Printed copies and/or compact disc copies of the Draft IS/EA were mailed to responsible agencies and other agencies. The Notice of Completion was provided to the State Clearinghouse for purposes of documenting circulation, and copies of the Draft IS/EA were also transmitted for distribution to various State agencies. The complete Draft IS/EA and supporting technical studies were made available for public review at the following locations: California Department of Transportation, District 8 Office, 464 West Fourth Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92502 City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Lake Elsinore Branch Library, 600 West Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Study Results Available Public Information Meeting EA 0A4400 Interstate 15 (I‐15)/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project WHAT IS BEING PLANNED? The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the City of Lake Elsinore, proposes improvements to the Interstate 15 (I‐15)/Railroad Canyon Road interchange (IC) and the construction of a new interchange 0.22 mile north of the existing I‐15/Franklin Street overcrossing. The proposed Project is located in the City of Lake Elsinore in Riverside County. Along I‐15, the Project construction limits extend from Post Mile (PM) 18.3 at the southerly limits to PM 21.0 at the northerly limits. The proposed Project would reconstruct the existing Railroad Canyon Road IC and construct a new four lane overcrossing/interchange approximately 1,160 feet north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing to reduce local street congestion, and accommodate projected growth in the area. The proposed work involves sites on a list enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code pertaining to hazardous wastes. WHY THIS AD? Caltrans has studied the effects this project may have on the environment. Our studies show it will not significantly affect the quality of the environment. This notice is to inform you of the preparation of the Draft Initial Study (with proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration)/ Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) and of its availability for you to read. A public information meeting will be held to give you an opportunity to talk about certain design features of the project with Caltrans staff before the final design is selected. The tentative schedule for the purchase of land for right‐of‐way and construction will also be discussed and Caltrans staff will explain the Department’s relocation assistance for residents moved by the project. Project‐level conformity analysis shows that the project will conform to the State Implementation Plan, including localized impact analysis with interagency consultation for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) required by 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123. This project is not considered a Project of Air Quality Concern regarding particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). A detailed PM10 and PM2.5 hot‐spot analysis was not completed because Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements are met without an explicit hot‐spot analysis. The project comes from a conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Comment is requested regarding the project‐level conformity analysis. WHAT’S AVAILABLE? Maps for the Draft IS/EA and other project information are available for review and copying at the Caltrans District 8 Office, 464 W. Fourth St., San Bernardino, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Draft IS/EA also is available for review Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m.to 5:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at: Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside; Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore; and Monday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Tuesday 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., Wednesday/Thursday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Friday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Saturday 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Lake Elsinore Branch Library, 600 West Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore. The Draft IS/EA also is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore’s website at http://www.lake‐elsinore.org/city‐hall/city‐departments/city‐clerk/notices WHERE YOU COME IN Do you have any comments about processing the project with a Negative Declaration and IS/EA? Do you disagree with the findings of our study as set forth in the Draft IS/EA? Would you care to make any other comments on the project? Please submit your comments in writing no later than 5 pm, February 13, 2017 to Marie Petry, California Department of Transportation, District 8, Division of Environmental Planning, 464 W. Fourth St., Mail Station 821, San Bernardino, CA 92401 or via e‐mail to marie.petry@dot.ca.gov. For email comments, please include “I‐15 Railroad Canyon Road” in the subject line. The date we will begin accepting comments is January 12, 2017. If there are no major comments, Caltrans, in cooperation with RCTC, and the City of Lake Elsinore, will proceed with the project as planned. WHEN AND WHERE? The public information meeting, in an open house format, will be held February 1, 2017, 5:30 p.m. –7:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. CONTACT/ SPECIAL ACCOMMO‐ DATIONS Individuals who require documents in alternative formats are requested to contact RCTC, Attn: Alex Menor, 4080 Lemon Street,3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501, (951) 787‐7970 (voice) or use the California Relay Service (800) 735‐2929 (TTY), (800) 735‐2929 (voice), or 711. Aviso al Público Aviso de Disponibilidad de una Evaluación Ambiental Aviso de Intención de Adoptar una Declaración Negativa Mitigada Resultados de Estudios Ambientales Están Disponibles Aviso de una Audiencia Pública EA 0A4400 Interstate 15 (I‐15)/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project ¿QUÉ ES LO PLANEADO? El Departamento de Transporte de California (Caltrans por sus siglas en Inglés), en cooperación con el Departamento de Transporte del Condado de Riverside (RCTC) y la ciudad de Lake Elsinore, proponen mejorar el intercambio (IC) de autopista Interestatal 15 (I‐15) con el cruce Railroad Canyon Road y la construcción de un nuevo intercambio aproximadamente 0.22 millas al norte del puente I‐15/Franklin Street. El proyecto propuesto está localizado en la Ciudad de Lake Elsinore en el Condado de Riverside. Sobre el I‐15 los límites de construcción del proyecto se extienden desde la milla 18.3 (Post Mile) en el sur hasta la milla 21.0 al Norte. El proyecto propuesto reconstruirá el existente cruce con Railroad Canyon Road y construirá un nuevo sobre cruce/intercambio de cuatro carriles aproximadamente 1,160 pies al norte del existente sobre cruce en Franklin Street para reducir la congestión de las calles locales y para tener capacidad para el crecimiento pronosticado en el área. El trabajo propuesto incluye sitios en una lista enumerado bajo la Sección 65962.5 del Código de Gobierno relacionados a residuos peligrosos. ¿PORQUE ESTE AVISO? Caltrans ha estudiado los efectos que este proyecto puede traer al medio ambiente. Nuestros estudios concluyen que no afectaran la calidad del medio ambiente. Este aviso es para informarle sobre la preparación del Proyecto De Estudio Inicial (con un propuesta Declaración Negativa Mitigada)/ Evaluación Ambiental (IS/EA) y la disponibilidad de este documento para que el público lea. Se llevará a cabo una audiencia pública para dar la oportunidad de hablar con empleados de Caltrans acerca de ciertas características de diseño del proyecto antes de elegir el diseño final. El calendario provisional para la compra de tierra para facilitar el proyecto y otros derechos provisionales durante la construcción también se discutirán. Empleados de Caltrans explicarán la asistencia de reubicación para los residentes mudados por el proyecto. Análisis de Conformidad a nivel de proyecto demuestra que el proyecto se ajustara al Plan de Implementación Del Estado (SIP), incluyendo análisis de impacto localizado con consultación interinstitucional para Monóxido de Carbón y materia particular (PM10 and PM2.5) requeridos por 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123. Este proyecto no es considerado un proyecto de preocupación de Calidad de Aire con respecto a materia particular (PM10 and PM2.5) definido en 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) y por esa razón, un análisis detallado de PM10 y PM2.5 no fue completado ya que los requerimientos del Clean Air Act y 40 CFR 93.116 fueron cumplidos. El proyecto está incluido en el plan regional (RTP) que conforma con el Programa de Proyectos de Mejoras de Transportación Pública (TIP). Se aceptarán comentarios acerca del Análisis de conformidad a nivel de proyecto. ¿QUÉ ESTÁ DISPONIBLE? Mapas para el Estudio Inicial (IS/EA) y otra información sobre el proyecto están disponibles para que el público examine y reproduzca copias en la Oficinas de Caltrans Districto 8, 464 W. Fourth St., San Bernardino, de Lunes a Viernes de 8 a.m. a 4 p.m. El Estudio Inicial (IS/EA) también estará disponible para revisar/examinar de Lunes a Jueves de 8 a.m. a 5:30 p.m. y Viernes de 8 a.m. a 4:30 p.m. en: Riverside County Transportation Commission , 4080 Lemon St., 3rd Floor, Riverside; al igual que en el Departamento de Ingeniería de la Ciudad de Lake Elsinore, 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore de Lunes a Jueves de 8 a.m. a 5 p.m. y Viernes de 8 a.m. a 4 p.m.; y en la biblioteca pública de Lake Elsinore, 600 West Graham Ave., Lake Elsinore los Lunes de 10 a.m. a 6 p.m., Martes 11 a.m. a 7 p.m., Miércoles y Jueves de 10 a.m. a 6 p.m., Viernes de 10 a.m. a 5 p.m. y Sábado de 10 a.m. a 2 p.m. El Estudio Inicial (IS/EA) también será disponible en el sitio web de la Ciudad de Lake Elsinore http://www.lake‐ elsinore.org/city‐hall/city‐departments/city‐clerk/notices ¿CUÁL ES SU PARTE? ¿Tiene usted algún comentario sobre el procesamiento de la Declaración Negativa Mitigada y del IS/EA? ¿Se opone usted a las recomendaciones de nuestros estudios expuestos en el Estudio Inicial (IS/EA)? ¿Le gustaría hacer algún otro comentario sobre el proyecto? Por favor envie sus comentarios por escrito no más tardar de las 5 p.m. del 13 de Febrero 2017 a Marie Petry, California Department of Transportation, District 8, Division of Environmental Planning, 464 W. Fourth St. Mail Station 821, San Bernardino, CA 92401 o por correo electrónico a Marie.petry@dot.ca.gov. Para comentarios por correo electrónico por favor incluya “I‐15 Railroad Canyon Road” en la línea de asunto. Comenzaremos a aceptar comentarios el 12 de Enero de 2017. Si no existen comentarios mayores, Caltrans en cooperación con RCTC y la ciudad de Lake Elsinore, continuara con el proyecto como está planeado. ¿CUÁNDO Y DÓNDE? La audiencia pública se llevara a cabo en un formato de foro abierto, el Miercoles, 1 de Febrero de 2017, de 5:30 p.m. a 7:30 p.m. en el Centro Cultural de la Ciudad de Lake Elsinore, 183 N. Main St, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 CONTACTO/ ALOJAMIENT‐ OS ESPECIALES Para individuos que requieren diferente forma de comunicación, por favor pónganse en contacto con RCTC, Attn: Alex Menor, 4080 Lemon St. 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501, (951) 787‐7970 o el Servicio de Retransmisión de California (800) 735‐2929 (TTY), (800) 735‐2929, o 711. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-18 An Open Forum Public Information Meeting was held at the City of Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, located at 183 North Main Street in the City of Lake Elsinore, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on February 1, 2017. Approximately 13 members of the public attended the public information meeting. Four comment cards were turned in at the public information meeting. Questions and concerns raised by those who attended the public hearing primarily focused on traffic operations and possible impacts to businesses. The comment cards, letters, and emailed comments are all included at the end of this chapter. Section 3.3, below, explains how the individual comments and responses are organized and presented in this Final Environmental Document. 3.3 Comments and Responses to Comments 3.3.1 Comments Received Table 3.B provides a complete indexed list of the comments received on the circulated Draft IS/EA, and also includes the comment cards received at the public information meeting. The index numbers are based on a unique letter and number code for each comment, for organizational purposes. Table 3.B: Comment Letters Received During Public Comment Period Letter Name Date A Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District February 6, 2017 B California Department of Toxic Substances Control February 8, 2017 C Federal Emergency Management Agency January 19, 2017 D Cal Fire – Riverside Unit Riverside County Fire Department February 4, 2017 E Pechanga Tribal Historic Preservation Office February 13, 2017 F Native American Heritage Commission February 2, 2017 G California Department of Fish and Wildlife February 16, 2017 H Leonard Leichnitz February 9, 2017 I Jim D’Angelo January 13, 2017 J Judy Lovitt January 18, 2017 K Cheryl Feskowetz February 1, 2017 L Ashok and Kay Talwar February 1, 2017 M Pat Young February 8, 2017 N Larry Dirgo February 12, 2017 O John and Kelly Jackson February 12, 2017 P Dennis and Sue Wright February 8, 2017 Q Lisa Shirley February 8, 2017 R Alex Gonzalez, Tradeland Properties, LLC February 6, 2017 S Roberta Alexander February 8, 2017 T Donald A. Nordine February 1, 2017 3.3.2 Format of Responses to Comments Responses to the comment letters are provided in Table 3.B, which follows on pages 3-19 to 3-103. The responses to comments are organized to correspond specifically to the comment, starting with the base comment index letter/number designation. All of the comments received are included below along with the responses to comments. The copies of the comments also show the complete index letter/number, for cross-reference purposes. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-19 CommentResponse A-1 Per direction from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Minimization Measure HY-1 is not required. As a result, it is not included in this Final IS/EA. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-20 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-21 CommentResponse B-1 An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was prepared for the project in March 2015 (revised May 2015). The following tasks were conducted as part of this ISA; Environmental Database Review, Agency Records Review, Historic Research, and Site Reconnaissance. Results from these reviews are discussed in detail in Section 2.14 Hazardous Waste and Materials, of this Final IS/EA. Several minimization measures are identified in Section 2.14.4 of this Final IS/EA to address the potential to encounter hazardous waste or materials. B-2 Section 2.14.3 of this Final IS/EA, Hazardous Waste and Materials Environmental Consequences, details potential hazards of concern for the project area. These hazards include two Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC), and a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC), all which pose a low risk to the project area. Additionally, as outlined in Minimization Measure HAZ-1 (Site Investigations), during final design, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) Project Manager will require a qualified engineer/geologist (Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist) under contract to the City to conduct site investigations and soil testing for hazardous materials sites identified in the Updated Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (March 2015 [revised May 2015]) that are within the right-of-way of Alternative 2. The performance standard for this measure is in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. The Site Investigation Report will meet or exceed the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (FR 66070, Vol. 70, No. 210, November 1, 2005). The Site Investigation Report will be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review and approval of areas within the State right-of-way. B-3 Section 2.11 of this Final IS/EA, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, details the project’s compliance with the necessary NPDES permits. Minimization Measures are included to ensure incorporation of the NPDES permits during final design of the project. With Minimization Measure WQ-1, the City of Lake Elsinore shall comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and any subsequent permit or individual permit if required by the Santa Ana RWQCB as they relate to construction activities for the project including dewatering. This shall include a Notification of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB at least 30 days prior to the start of construction, preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a Notice of Termination to the Santa Ana RWQCB upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site. Under Minimization Measure WQ-2, the City shall comply with the provisions of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003. The City shall follow the procedures outlined in the Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide, for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project. This shall include coordination with the Santa Ana RWQCB with respect to feasibility, maintenance, and monitoring of Treatment BMPs as set forth in Caltrans’ Statewide Storm Water Management Plan. Minimization Measure WQ-3 stipulates that the City shall comply with the provisions of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NPDES Permit Order No. R8-2013-0024, NPDES No. CAS 618033, and any subsequent permit or individual permit if required by the RWQCB as they relate to post-construction and operational activities. The City shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in compliance with the NPDES Permit requirements. When BMPs are implemented in accordance with NPDES Permit requirements, as stipulated in these minimization measures, operation of the project would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-22 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-23 Comment Response B-4 Section 2.14 of this Final IS/EA, Hazardous Waste and Materials, includes minimization measures to address potential contamination of soil and/or groundwater. As outlined in Minimization Measure HAZ-1, If contaminants are determined to be present during the site investigations, the City Project Manager, in consultation with the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist, may determine that one or more of the following specialized reports may be necessary: Remedial Actions Options Report, Soil Management Plan, Sensitive Receptor Survey, Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment, and/or Quarterly Monitoring Report. These reports will be submitted to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator, as well as to the applicable oversight agency for review and approval of areas within State right-of-way. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-24 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-25 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-26 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-27 Comment Response C-1 Section 2.10.2, Affected Environment, on page 2.10-1, in this Final IS/EA, indicates that FIRM maps dated August 28, 2008, the most recently available FIRM maps, were reviewed for the project. Refer to the Response to Comments C-2 through C-5, below, for discussion regarding the NFIP floodplain management building requirements. C-2 The project is a roadway infrastructure project that does not include the construction of any buildings. Therefore, the NFIP building requirement to locate the lowest floor of buildings at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is not applicable to the project. C-3 As described in Section 2.10.2 of this Final IS/EA, Affected Environment, and in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Floodplains, a project segment of I-15 from the San Jacinto River to north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing is in Zone A of the 100-year floodplain (Wash “D”), which represents that no Base Flood Elevations have been determined. There is no planned construction work within the San Jacinto River. As identified in the Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (July 2010), there would be no significant floodplain-related risks to life or property associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the Location Hydraulic Study (July 2010) concluded that there was a low flooding risk associated with all Build Alternatives. The Conceptual Drainage Analysis determined that the project would not adversely affect local drainage facilities and that the City’s storm drain system could accommodate the increase in storm flows from the project. The project would require modifications to the existing local drainage structures, but would not alter the existing drainage pattern of downstream areas or lead to downstream flooding. There are no substantial floodplain-related risks to life or property associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the project would not promote incompatible floodplain development. C-4 A Location Hydraulics Study was prepared for the project as described in Section 2.10.3.2 of this Final IS/EA, Permanent Impacts, and in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Floodplains. Those studies concluded that there was a low flooding risk associated with the Build Alternatives. The Conceptual Drainage Analysis determined that the project would not adversely affect local drainage facilities and that the City’s storm drain system could accommodate the increase in storm flows from the project. Refer also to Response to Comment C-3, above, for discussion regarding BFEs. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-28 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-29 CommentResponse C-5 It is not anticipated that development would result in map revisions to FEMA flood map revisions. Refer to the Responses to Comments C-3 and C-4, above, for discussion regarding increasing BFE levels in Regulatory Floodways as delineated on a FIRM and for hydrologic and hydraulic study conclusions. C-6 The local floodplain manager, the Lake Elsinore City Engineer, was contacted on April 19, 2017, and advised that the project is outside of the floodplain. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-30 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-31 Comment Response D-1 As documented in Appendix A, CEQA Environmental Checklist, Response VIII.g., and in Section 2.7.3.1 of this Final IS/EA, Temporary Impacts, during construction, some impairment to the delivery of services, including fire and police response times, may occur. However, these temporary impacts would be substantially minimized through the implementation of Minimization Measure TR-1 (see Section 2.7.4, Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures). TR-1 states that a detailed Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared during the final design phase of the project. The objective of the TMP is to minimize the potential impacts that construction activities may have on the traveling public and emergency services providers. Preparation of the TMP shall be coordinated with the emergency services providers in the project vicinity to minimize response delays resulting from traffic delays, temporary ramp and lane closures, and detours during project construction. Furthermore, no new residential or commercial uses are proposed as part of the project and would not increase the demand for fire protection services. D-2 Refer to Response to Comment D-1, above, for discussion regarding the project’s impacts on fire and emergency response. D-3 As documented in Appendix A, CEQA Environmental Checklist, Response VIII.h., portions of the project site are identified as being within a “very high” wildfire zone. However, the project site is currently developed with existing highway facilities and access roads. A majority of the project site is currently sparsely vegetated and surrounded by developed commercial and residential uses; however, the potential for wildfires to ignite does exist. Therefore, the following minimization measure has been added to this Final IS/EA in Section 2.6.3, Utilities and Emergency Services Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures, to address the risk of wildlfires: UES-4 Fire Prevention During Construction: Prior to and during any construction activities, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Project Engineer will require the construction contractor to implement the following measures to minimize the risk of fires during construction: Coordinate with the applicable local fire department to identify and maintain defensible spaces around active construction areas. Coordinate with the applicable local fire department to identify and maintain firefighting equipment (extinguishers, shovels, and water tankers) in active construction areas. Prohibit the use of mechanized equipment or equipment that could throw off sparks in areas adjacent to open space or undeveloped land. Post emergency services phone numbers (fire, emergency medical, and police) in visible locations in all active construction areas. D-4 Refer to Response to Comment D-1, above, for discussion regarding the project’s impacts on fire and emergency response. Compliance with the TMP would minimize response delays resulting from traffic delays, temporary ramp and lane closures, and detours during project construction. D-5 Refer to Responses to Comments D-1 through D-4, above, for discussion regarding the projects impacts on fire and emergency response and applicable minimization measures. The Environmental Commitments Record in this Final IS/EA includes a list of all measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate project-related impacts. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-32 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-33 Comment Response D-6 The construction contract for this project will direct that CalFire’s request in this regard will be implemented. D-7 The project does not include the construction of structures or features or changes in operation that would increase demand on fire protection services for the project site or area. However, temporary road closures during construction may affect emergency response times. In addition, construction activities may increase fire risks or increase the need for emergency response if there is an accident on the construction site. Adherence to Minimization Measure TR-1 would minimize the potential impacts that construction activities may have on emergency services providers. Minimization Measure TR-1 states that a detailed TMP shall be prepared during the final design phase of the project. The objective of the TMP is to minimize the potential impacts that construction activities may have on the traveling public and emergency services providers. Preparation of the TMP shall be coordinated with the emergency services providers in the project vicinity to minimize response delays resulting from traffic delays, temporary ramp and lane closures, and detours during project construction. D-8 No new residential, commercial, or industrial structures are proposed with the project. The project is a roadway infrastructure project that does not include new access points similar to new residential, commercial, or industrial developments. D-9 Please refer to Response to Comment D-8, above. D-10 As stated in Minimization Measure TR-1, preparation of the TMP will be coordinated with the emergency services providers in the project vicinity to minimize response delays resulting from traffic delays, temporary ramp and lane closures, and detours during project construction. D-11 The project will remain compliant with all applicable California Fire Code standards. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-34 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-35 Comment Response E-1 The Tribe’s formal request for involvement is acknowledged and, as a result, consultation under Section 106 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was conducted on March 1, 2017. The Tribe’s request for notifications is acknowledged and will include the Tribe in the distribution of project-related notices and circulation of documents. The comments are incorporated into the record of approval for the project in this Final IS/EA. There are no other substantive statements or questions about this Final IS/EA or analysis therein. Therefore, no further response is required. E-2 All project-related consultation with the Tribe is documented in Chapter 3 of this Final IS/EA. AB 52 government-to-government consultation was initiated with Tribes that notified Caltrans in writing to consult on any projects within the area of this project on February 9, 2017. All consulting tribes received an AB 52 consultation letter from Caltrans. Consultation under CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA for the IS/EA was completed as of March 31, 2017. The Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR 2011) and the Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (SHPSR 2015) prepared for the project identifies and documents public participation efforts completed for the project, which included consultation with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians between September 2009 to March 2011. Consultation under Section 106 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was also conducted on March 1, 2017. These studies were performed following published guidance for compliance with State and federal requirements for cultural resource analyses. Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address cultural resources have been identified and included in this Final IS/EA in Section 2.9.4, Cultural Resources, Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. Specific measures to address potential impact to TCRs include Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4. Consultation will continue during the design and construction phase of the project as described in Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4 CR-3 Project grading plans shall be provided to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for review prior to any ground-disturbing activities within native soils. The need for Native American monitoring of ground-disturbing activities within native soils shall be evaluated and agreed to by the Caltrans District 8 Native American Coordinator, tribal representatives, a qualified archaeological monitor, and the City’s Public Works Director, or designee. CR-4 Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, a Monitoring and Discovery Plan shall be prepared. The Monitoring and Discover Plan will define the monitoring protocol and the procedures for addressing the discovery of cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources. If cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered during disturbances in native soils, the qualified archaeological monitor shall be empowered to redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. At the time of the assessment, the qualified archaeological monitor may require the initiation of an archaeological testing program that would include the recordation of artifacts and controlled removal of the materials, as well as sampling of the area surrounding the find to delineate its horizontal and vertical extent. If the find is determined to be significant or is a unique archaeological and/or tribal cultural resource, a data recovery program shall be conducted to recover an adequate sample from the site to mitigate any impacts by the project. At the completion of all disturbances within native soils during project construction, the archaeological monitor shall provide a report documenting the monitoring conducted on the site, including a discussion of any cultural and/or tribal cultural resources encountered during construction, how those resources were addressed and documented, any data recovery program, and where any artifacts were curated. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-36 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-37 Comment Response E-2 Please refer to Response to Comment E-2, above. E-3 Please refer to Response to Comment E-2, above in regards to tribal consultation and compliance with CEQA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and other applicable State and federal laws. The Tribe’s request for including an evaluation of the project’s potential to affect TCRs is acknowledged. Section 2.9.3.1 (Cultural Resources) of this Final IS/EA, includes an evaluation and discussion of the project’s effect on TCRs. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-38 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-39 Comment Response E-3 Please refer to Response to Comment E-3, above. E-4 There are no substantive statements or questions about this Final IS/EA or analysis therein. Therefore, no response is required. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-40 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-41 Comment Response E-4 Please refer to Response to Comment E-4, above. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-42 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-43 Comment Response E-4 Please refer to Response to Comment E-4, above. E-5 Please refer to Response to Comment E-2, above. E-6 Please refer to Response to Comment E-2 and E-5, above. Adequacy of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures has been discussed during consultation and refinements to avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address cultural resources were identified and included in this Final IS/EA. Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address cultural resources have been identified and included in this Final IS/EA in Section 2.9.4, Cultural Resources, Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. Specific measures to address potential impact to TCRs include Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-44 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-45 Comment Response E-6 Please refer to Response to Comment E-6, above. E-7 Please refer to Response to Comments E-2, above. E-8 Please refer to Response to Comments E-2, above. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-46 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-47 Comment Response F-1 There is no executive summary in the environmental document. The CEQA Environmental Checklist is included in Appendix A of this Final IS/EA. Each applicable Section of this Final IS/EA provides the corresponding CEQA discussion per environmental topic area. The updated current CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix A of this Final IS/EA), including TCRs, is included. TCRs are specifically addressed in Section 2.9.3.1 (Cultural Resources) of this Final IS/EA.F-2 All project-related consultation with the Tribe is documented in Chapter 3 of this Final IS/EA. AB 52 government-to-government consultation was initiated with Tribes that notified Caltrans in writing to consult on any projects within the area of this project on February 9, 2017. All consulting tribes received an AB 52 consultation letter from Caltrans. Consultation under CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA for the IS/EA was completed as of March 31, 2017. The Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR 2011) and the Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (SHPSR 2015) prepared for the project identify and document public participation efforts completed for the project, which included consultation with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians from September 2009 to March 2011. Consultation under Section 106 and AB 52 was also conducted on March 1, 2017. These studies were performed following published guidance for compliance with State and federal requirements for cultural resource analyses. Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address cultural resources have been identified and included in this Final IS/EA in Section 2.9.4, Cultural Resources, Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. Specific measures to address potential impact to TCRs include Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4. Consultation will continue during the design and construction phase of the project as described in Minimization Measures CR-3 and CR-4. CR-3 Project grading plans shall be provided to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for review prior to any ground-disturbing activities within native soils. The need for Native American monitoring of ground-disturbing activities within native soils shall be evaluated and agreed to by the Caltrans District 8 Native American Coordinator, tribal representatives, a qualified archaeological monitor, and the City’s Public Works Director, or designee. CR-4 Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, a Monitoring and Discovery Plan shall be prepared. The Monitoring and Discover Plan will define the monitoring protocol and the procedures for addressing the discovery of cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources. If cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered during disturbances in native soils, the qualified archaeological monitor shall be empowered to redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. At the time of the assessment, the qualified archaeological monitor may require the initiation of an archaeological testing program that would include the recordation of artifacts and controlled removal of the materials, as well as sampling of the area surrounding the find to delineate its horizontal and vertical extent. If the find is determined to be significant or is a unique archaeological and/or tribal cultural resource, a data recovery program shall be conducted to recover an adequate sample from the site to mitigate any impacts by the project. At the completion of all disturbances within native soils during project construction, the archaeological monitor shall provide a report documenting the monitoring conducted on the site, including a discussion of any cultural and/or tribal cultural resources encountered during construction, how those resources were addressed and documented, any data recovery program, and where any artifacts were curated. F-3 Good faith government-to-government consultation under Section 106 took place pre-AB 52 compliance and is documented in Chapter 3 of this Final IS/EA. AB 52 is triggered with the publication of a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration after July 1, 2015. AB 52 government-to-government consultation was initiated with Tribes that notified Caltrans in writing to consult on any projects within the area of this project on February 9, 2017. All consulting tribes received an AB 52 consultation letter from Caltrans. Consultation under Section 106 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was conducted on March 1, 2017. F-4 The project Area of Potential Effect (APE) has been surveyed on multiple occasions and all cultural resources identified. The APE is extensively disturbed and over 50% developed (recently) with the majority of development in the eastern half of the APE in greater proximity to the San Jacinto River. Given proximity to the river in the eastern portion of the APE, this portion is of higher sensitivity archaeologically; however, as stated before, this portion is almost completely developed. The western half of the APE (less archaeological sensitivity) is disturbed by off-road vehicle activities. The likelihood of observing previously unrecorded resources within the APE, including historic built-environment, is negligible. Therefore, a new (additional) survey of the APE would not result in substantial new information. While a new survey is not warranted, monitoring is recommended during construction. While the cultural resources assessments (archaeology and historic built environment) remain valid based on the information provided above, AB 52 consultation establishes the presence or absence of TCRs. AB 52, and the consultation requirement including identifying TCRs, was initiated by Caltrans on February 9, 2017. Consultation under CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA for the project is complete. Mitigation measures for TCRs have been added into this Final IS/EA in Section 2.9.3.1 (Cultural Resources). Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-48 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-49 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-50 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-51 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-52 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-53 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-54 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-55 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-56 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-57 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-58 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-59 Comment Response G-1 While suitable habitat for plants identified in the comment were identified within the project area, the habitat was determined to be marginally suitable for all identified plant species in the comment. The project is not located within a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA) or Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA); therefore, no focused surveys are required and were not conducted. Five of the six plants species are “covered” species under the MSHCP (species that will be conserved by the MSHCP when the MSHCP is implemented), with the exception of white rabbit tobacco, which carries a California Rare Plant Rank of 2B by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Plants designated as a 2B species are species that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. As documented on page 2.19-3 of this Final IS/EA, of the six plants species (the same six plant species identified in the comment) with the potential to occur within the biological study area (BSA), none was observed during the field reconnaissance-level survey of the BSA. The field reconnaissance-level survey followed industry standards for habitat assessments and included the necessary studies determined to be required through a literature review which included the databases and documents published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base, the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Soil Data Mart, a United States Fish and Wildlife Service Letter identifying a list of threatened and endangered species that have the potential to occur within the project location, and the MSHCP. As described above, focused plant surveys were not required as the project is not located within a CAPSSA or NEPSSA survey area. The analysis provided within the environmental document satisfies all regulations pertaining to analyses of biological resources per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-60 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-61 Comment ResponseG-1 Please refer to Response to Comment G-1, above.G-2 As documented on page 2.20-3 of this Final IS/EA, two special-status bat species were identified as having the potential to be present within the Biological Study Area (BSA): western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). The bridges spanning over the San Jacinto River contain suitable bat night-roosting habitat (i.e., crevices). Bats that utilize crevices, including the western mastiff bat, may use existing bridges within the project limits. The BSA does not contain suitable roosting habitat for the western yellow bat. Minimization Measure AN-9, which is included in Section 2.20.4 of this document as well as in the Environmental Commitments Record for this project, will minimize impacts to bats to the greatest extent feasible. AN-9 Prior to construction, an agency-approved bat biologist shall conduct a bat assessment survey to determine the presence or absence of bat species that may occur within the project limits. Should the presence of bat species be determined during this assessment, the following measures shall be implemented to address potential impacts to bats. • Project-related construction activities shall occur outside of the bat maternity roosting season (April 1–August 31), if feasible. Should such activities occur during the maternity roosting season (April 1–August 31), the following measures shall be implemented to minimize potential impacts to day-roosting bats (including maternity colonies) from project construction. • Nighttime exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed by a Caltrans-approved bat biologist at all structures that may be subject to project-related impacts. These surveys shall be performed during the recognized bat maternity season (April 1–August 31, but preferably in June or July), and as far in advance of construction as possible in order to provide adequate time for mitigation planning. • Construction activities at structures housing maternity colonies shall be coordinated with a Caltrans-approved bat biologist and the CDFW. • If direct impacts to bat roosting habitat are anticipated, humane evictions and exclusions of roosting bats should be performed under the supervision of an agency-approved bat biologist after August 31 in the fall (September or October) prior to any work activities that would result in direct impacts or direct mortality to roosting bats. This action will be performed in coordination with the CDFW. To avoid potential mortality of flightless juvenile bats, evictions and exclusions of bats cannot be performed during the maternity season (April 1–August 31). Winter months are also inappropriate for bat eviction because not all individuals in a roost will emerge on any given night. In addition, long-distance movements to other roost sites are more difficult during the winter when prey availability is scarce, resulting in high mortality rates of evicted bats. • Alternate bat-roosting habitat structures should be installed on the structure prior to the eviction/exclusion of bats from that structure. The design, numbers, and locations of these roost structures should be determined in consultation with a Caltrans-approved bat biologist. • If permanent, direct impacts to bat roosting habitat are anticipated and a humane eviction/exclusion is performed, alternate permanent roosting habitat shall be provided to ensure no net loss of bat roosting habitat. This action shall be coordinated with the CDFW, and locations of these roost structures should be determined in consultation with an agency-approved bat biologist to ensure that the installed habitat will provide adequate mitigation for impacts. • The loss of a night roost can negatively affect the use of a foraging area, and consequently may result in reduced fecundity in species that are already slow to reproduce. If night roosting is confirmed at any of the structures within the proposed project area, the following measure to minimize potential impacts to night-roosting and foraging bats shall be implemented: • At structures where night roosting is suspected or confirmed, work shall be limited to the daylight hours to the greatest extent feasible to avoid potential disruption of foraging. If night work cannot be avoided, night lighting shall be focused only on the area of direct work, airspace access to and from the roost features of the structure shall not be obstructed, and light spillover into the adjacent foraging areas shall be minimized to greatest extent feasible. As discussed on page 2.16-53 in the Noise Section of Chapter 2, no sound walls are planned for the project. Construction activities in the vicinity of the I-15 mainline bridges for all Build Alternatives are limited to pavement application and no substantial ground disturbance is planned within 50 feet of the structures. Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-62 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-63 Comment Response G-2 Please refer to Response to Comment G-2, above. G-3 The recommendation to perform pre-construction nesting bird surveys at any time during the year is acknowledged; however, compliance with the MBTA is already conditioned for the project and included as Measures AN-7 of this Final IS/EA. As specified in these measures, the bird nesting season is accurately described as between February 15 to September 1. Compliance with the MBTA will be the responsibility of Caltrans and the City of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project’s measures to address the MBTA are already satisfied. Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. G-4 Surveys for the LBV conducted in 2009 determined that the LBV is present in the project area within the San Jacinto River. As shown in Figure 6 of the project's Natural Environment Study, the LBV territory is not within, but adjacent to the planned construction area and the analysis determined that no direct impacts would occur to the LBV. Several measures are already identified to address potential indirect effects to the LBV and are included in this Final IS/EA. A buffer distance of 500 feet during LBV nesting season will be specified in Measure TE-1 to further minimize potential impacts to the LBV. Additionally, although the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) was not observed during the 2009 focused survey, this species may utilize riparian habitat occupied by the least Bell’s vireo within the San Jacinto River With implementation of Measure TE-1, potential indirect effects to the SWWF and its habitat would not be adverse under this alternative. Ambient noise conditions in this part of the project area reach 70 decibels from existing traffic volumes along I-15 as documented in Chapter 2.16, Noise. As described above in the response to comments on bats, construction activities in the vicinity of the I-15 mainline bridges for all build alternatives are limited to pavement application and no substantial ground disturbance is planned with 50 feet of the structure s and a minimum of 140 feet from the LBV territory. Referring to Table 2.16.D, typical noise levels for rollers used in pavement application are 80 decibels. Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. Given the distance away from the nearest construction activity to the LBV habitat, sounds levels would be no more than 74 decibels, 4 decibels above to the existing ambient noise environment. Furthermore, with the modifications to Measure TE‐1, requiring a buffer distance of 500 feet during the LBV breeding season, noise levels would be further reduced. Revised Measure TE-1 and new Measure AN-8 to address potential impacts to LBV and SWWF are identified below. TE-1 Prior to clearing or construction during the least Bell’s vireo nesting season (March 15 to September 1), highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) will be installed providing a minimum 500- foot buffer around riparian and riverine communities adjacent to the project footprint to be flagged as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to be preserved. No grading or fill activity of any type will be permitted within these ESAs. In addition, heavy equipment, including motor vehicles, will not be allowed to operate within the ESAs. All construction equipment will be operated in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to nearby preserved areas. No structure of any kind, or incidental storage of equipment or supplies, shall be allowed within these protected zones. Silt fence barriers will be installed at the ESA boundary to prevent accidental deposition of fill material in areas where vegetation is adjacent to planned grading activities. AN-8 Any new lighting fixtures that would be installed within 300 feet of the San Jacinto River shall be wildlife-friendly and shall be directed away from biologically sensitive areas, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas, and vegetated drainages. Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-64 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-65 Comment Response G-4 Please refer to Response to Comment G-4, above. G-5 A citation to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. has been added to the end of the first paragraph in Section 2.18.2.3. G-6 The suggested revision to Measure AN-3 is incorporated into this Final IS/EA as recommended, in Section 2.20.4. Minimization measures AN-3 were revised in the discussion in Chapter 2 Section 2.20.4 as well as in the ECR in Appendix E. Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-66 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-67 Comment Response G-6 Please refer to Response to Comment G-6, above. G-7 Measure TE-4 was removed from the Final IS/EA as it was duplicative of Measure AN-7 in Section 2.20.4. Suggested revisions to the language pertaining to compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has been applied to Measure AN-7, as requested. Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. G-8 Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency review, which includes a review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the Natural Environment Study (NES) by the USFWS and CDFW to determine consistency with the MSHCP was completed for this project. The CDFW and USFWS issued an MSHCP Consistency Determination noting that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP on August 14, 2017. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-68 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-69 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-70 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-71 Comment Response H-1 Section 2.1.1 of this Final IS/EA describes the existing and future land uses within the four quadrants surrounding both the Railroad Canyon Road interchange and the planned new Franklin Street interchange. As the commenter notes, the lands within the northwest quadrant of the planned new Franklin Street interchange (where APN 373-071-018 is located) are described in this Final IS/EA as currently vacant. The context of Section 2.1.1 is to describe the future land uses (i.e., what the local General Plan designates the land as) and the existing current use (what is on the land at the time of the analysis). Thus, based on this context, APN 373-071-018 is accurately described as vacant. The remaining contextual information does not contain any other substantive statements or questions about this Final IS/EA or analysis therein. Therefore, no further response is required. The TTM 33370 project is now included in Table 2.1.A, As referenced in this comment, this project was inadvertently omitted from Table 2.1.A of the Draft Environmental Document (DED). However, the DED adequately evaluated the affected parcel associated with TTM 33370. This analysis can be found in Section 2.1 and Section 2.4, in relation to Land Use and Relocation and Property Acquisition respectively, of this Final IS/EA. As correctly noted by the commenter, the City and Caltrans were made aware of the TTM 33370 project and the status of the project in May 2014. At the time this information was made available to the Project Development Team (PDT), and given the status of the Interstate 15 (I-15) / Railroad Canyon Road project at the time this information was provided (environmental technical analysis completed and approved), the PDT decided to proceed with the project as planned and address potential conflicts with TTM 33370 during final design for the Franklin Street interchange. As part of Franklin Street interchange Final Design, the City would work with Caltrans to examine the extension of local connections to the Franklin Street interchange and initiate preparation of supplemental studies to address this potential conflict for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road project, if necessary. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-72 This page intentionally left blank H-4 Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-73 Comment Response H-1 Please refer to Response to Comment H-1, above. H-2 As part of Franklin Street interchange Final Design, Caltrans and the City would examine the potential impacts of construction of the planned frontage road and identify parcels required for partial and/or full acquisitions. Consideration of the viability of the planned development will be taken into consideration when a final determination of acquisition requirements is made. In addition, the analysis is based upon an existing condition that is the baseline from which impacts are determined. The baseline for this Final IS/EA is the point at which the environmental analysis was completed. The baseline and the analysis pertaining to the parcel affected can be found in Section 2.1 and Section 2.4, in relation to Land Use and Relocation and Property Acquisition respectively, of this Final IS/EA. While this Final IS/EA does include an analysis of the potential loss of tax revenue from property acquisitions, it only discusses the potential loss associated with a full acquisition and associated information. The number of full acquisitions identified in this Final IS/EA was based upon conceptual designs for each Build Alternative in the baseline condition. As no homes were located on the parcel at the time of the analysis, the analysis only considered the partial acquisition of APN 373-071-018 to accommodate the planned frontage road. When Phase 2 of this project is implemented, the project would be reevaluated to determine if the western frontage road can potentially impact TTM 33370. The environmental study area generally extends beyond the project construction limits to identify any potential direct and indirect impacts. However, in the absence of a defined new alignment, it is not possible to determine whether or not a realigned frontage road would be outside of the area studied. H-3 Based on the conceptual design for this frontage road at the time of the analysis, the depression/gully would be filled with fill material to construct the road at grade. No bridge structure would be included with the construction of the frontage road. H-4 Correct. The orange and black lines on Figure 1.4 represent the Proposed Right-of-Way for Alternative 4.H-5 No. Some of the orange and black lines depicted in Figure 1.4 of the Draft IS/EA were included inadvertently and do not represent the Proposed Right-of-Way for Alternative 4 accurately. The planned improvements on sheet 2 of 4 in Figure 1.4 are identical for all Build Alternatives. Therefore, sheet 2 of 4 in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 are representative of the planned improvements that should be depicted in Figure 1.4. As a result, Figure 1.4 has been corrected to remove unnecessary lines and be consistent with the information depicted in Figures 1.2 and 1.3. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-74 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-75 Comment Response H-6 The circulation scheme for the area in the vicinity of the Franklin Street interchange area, as depicted in Figure 1.4 sheet 2, is identical for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. There is no difference in the circulation scheme between the three Build Alternatives at this location. Some of the orange and black lines depicted in Figure 1.4 of the Draft IS/EA were included inadvertently and do not represent the Proposed Right-of-Way for Alternative 4 accurately. The planned improvements on sheet 2 of 4 in Figure 1.4 are identical for all Build Alternatives. Therefore, sheet 2 of 4 in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 are representative of the planned improvements that should be depicted in Figure 1.4. As a result, Figure 1.4 has been corrected to remove unnecessary lines and be consistent with the information depicted in Figures 1.2 and 1.3. Cut-and-fill data were inadvertently left out of Figure 1.4 in the Draft IS/EA. Figure 1.4 has been corrected to include information relating to cut and fill for Alternative 4 in this Final IS/EA. H-5 H-6 Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-76 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-77 Comment Response I-1 The commenter correctly understands that a portion of APNs 363-171-003 and 363-171-004 would require partial acquisitions to accommodate the construction of Alternative 4. Partial acquisitions for Alternative 4 are depicted in Figure 2.3.2 of the IS/EA. On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Therefore, there would be no impacts to these properties as Alternative 4 would not be constructed. Because Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative, the property will not be staked based on the Alternative 4 design and there will be no plan with dimensions relative to Alternative 4 available for review. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-78 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-79 Comment Response J-1 As documented in this Final IS/EA, Section 2.7.3 (Traffic), the planned roadway and freeway interchange improvements would not increase hazards due to design features, as the construction of the project would be required to adhere to Caltrans design standards. No access or roadway improvements have been planned that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-80 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-81 Comment Response K-1 On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. No roundabouts will be constructed. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-82 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-83 Comment Response L-1 On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-84 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-85 Comment Response M-1 As documented in Section 2.7.3 (Traffic), the planned roadway and freeway interchange improvements would not increase hazards due to design features, as the construction of the project would be required to adhere to Caltrans design standards. No access or roadway improvements have been planned that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). In addition, there are improvements also included to the proposed Franklin Street Interchange. Please refer to Section 1.4.1.3 of this Final IS/EA for details of these improvements. On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. No roundabouts will be constructed. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-86 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-87 Comment Response N-1 On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. No roundabouts will be constructed. N-2 As described in Section 1.4 of this Final IS/EA, Alternatives, several Build Alternatives have been studied over the past several years. For Build Alternatives to be considered feasible, they must meet the project’s purpose and need, described in Section 1.2 of this Final IS/EA, while maintaining operational performance at the interchange ramps, on the Interstate 15 (I-15) mainline, or at local intersections. Cost of the project and severity of impacts are also considered in addition to right-of-way constraints. Additionally, Section 2.7 of this Final IS/EA, Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, assesses the impacts of the planned improvements on traffic conditions. Overall, all of the Build Alternatives as currently designed are capable of improving the level of service upon completion of Phase 2 when compared to the No Build Alternative. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-88 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-89 Comment Response O-1 As described in Section 1.4 of this Final IS/EA, Alternatives, several Build Alternatives have been studied over the past several years. For Build Alternatives to be considered feasible, they must meet the project’s purpose and need, described in Section 1.2 of this Final IS/EA, while maintaining operational performance at the interchange ramps, on the Interstate 15 (I-15) mainline, or at local intersections. Cost of the project and severity of impacts are also considered in addition to right-of-way constraints. The provision of additional space along Railroad Canyon Road would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and complete reconstruction of the I-15 mainline bridges over Railroad Canyon Road, which would substantially increase the cost and timeline for improvements to be implemented. Section 2.7 of this Final IS/EA, Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, assesses the impacts of the planned improvements on traffic conditions. Overall, all of the Build Alternatives as currently designed are capable of improving the level of service upon completion of Phase 2 when compared to the No Build Alternative. As discussed in detail in the Need section of Chapter 1, (Section 1.2.2, page 1-6), and in the Traffic section of Chapter 2 (Section 2.7.3.2, beginning on page 2.7.5), Alternative 2 is expected to provide an acceptable level of operational performance. On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. O-2 The placement of a second deceleration lane on southbound I-15 would require substantial bridge work on the southbound I-15 mainline bridge over the San Jacinto River to create the necessary space for an adequate second lane and shoulder, which would substantially increase the cost and timeline for improvements to be implemented. Existing roadway geometries and right-of-way constraints do not allow for a restriping of the southbound off- ramp intersection at Railroad Canyon Road as suggested and was not considered for this reason. As described above in Response O-1, for Build Alternatives to be considered feasible, they must meet the project’s purpose and need, described in Section 1.2 of this Final IS/EA, while maintaining operational performance at the interchange ramps, on the Interstate 15 (I-15) mainline, or at local intersections. While adding a third lane along either side Railroad Canyon Road may be feasible, this improvement was not necessary as the current design for all Build Alternatives would improve the level of service to an acceptable level of operational performance. O-3 The construction of new structures within natural areas such as the San Jacinto River, which would be required in conjunction with the suggestion of adding an on-ramp as described, would be anticipated to result in even greater environmental impacts than what was identified in conjunction with studying the three build alternatives for this project, which are summarized in this Final IS/EA. O-4 Funding for the project comes from multiple sources including the City of Lake Elsinore, State and Federal sources, and the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF). The TUMF was approved by voters in 2002 with the passing of Measure A. Under the TUMF, developers pay a development fee to fund transportation projects that are necessary as a result of the growth created by their projects. The TUMF is administered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments and funds both local and regional arterial projects. O-5 Thank you for your interest in this project. This information does not contain any substantive statements or questions about this Final IS/EA or analysis therein. Therefore, no response is required. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-90 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-91 Comment Response O-6 Thank you for your interest in this project .The new deceleration lane on the southbound off-ramp was constructed to provide vehicle queuing storage space for the Railroad Canyon Road southbound off-ramp, and discourage the use of the outside southbound I-15 mainline shoulder for queuing vehicles. The deceleration project was needed due to safety concerns from vehicles queues backing up onto the I-15 mainline creating a hazardous condition at the southbound off ramp and Railroad Canyon Road. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-92 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-93 Comment Response P-1 On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the roject is greatly appreciated. No roundabouts will be constructed. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-94 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-95 Comment Response Q-1 Your preference for Alternative 3 is acknowledged. On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Table 1.Q in Section 1.4.2 of this Final IS/EA compares all alternatives for this project in detail. Some of the advantages that Alternative 2 has over Alternative 3 include lesser property acquisitions and lower cost to construct Alternative 2. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. No roundabouts will be constructed. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-96 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-97 No comments. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-98 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-99 Comment Response R-1 During property acquisitions, access to any remaining parcels will be provided by the City of Lake Elsinore. Where adequate access cannot be provided, parcels will be fully acquired. R-2 The planned Franklin Street Interchange is part of Phase 2 of the Interstate 15 (I-15)/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project, which is not currently funded; however, it is anticipated to be constructed by 2035. Any proposed development within the identified interchange footprint would have to comply with the required access control and take into consideration the planned interchange layout as part of their site’s development plan. The primary access to the affected parcels would be provided via Bancroft Way. During property acquisitions, access to any remaining parcels will be provided by the City of Lake Elsinore. Where adequate access cannot be provided, parcels will be fully acquired. R-3 Chapter 2.16 of this Final IS/EA. Noise, addresses consideration of noise impacts. At the time of the analysis, no sensitive receptors were located on the affected properties, nor have any development entitlements been approved; therefore, there was no need to evaluate abatement of potential noise impacts. If and when a proposal for development is prepared for the subject properties that precedes construction and completion of Phase 2 of this project, and processed by the City, the environmental review conducted for those future projects will determine what noise attenuation may be required as part of the development. Should a development proposal precede the completion of Phase 2, and results in the placement of sensitive receptors that could potentially be impacted by noise from project-related activities, Phase 2 of this project may require the preparation of a noise analysis to determine if noise attenuation measures would be required to ensure that impacts are not adverse. R-4 As noted above in Response to Comment R-2, the funding (including acquisition and construction) for Phase 2 of the project is not yet secured but is anticipated to be constructed by the year 2035. Phase 1 of the project is anticipated to take approximately 18 months for Alternative 2 beginning in 2018. Phase 2 of the project is anticipated to take approximately 24 months beginning in 2032 for Alternative 2. Funding for Phase 2 is not currently available but it will be secured prior to going to construction. R-5 At this time, no confirmation of the status of Cox and Talbert Streets can be made as there are no plans for development currently at these properties. The applicable parcel map depicting the parcels identified in the comment and the City right of way for Cox and Talbert Streets is Riverside County Parcel Map Book 373, Page/Block 072, Parcel 23, Check Digit 9, available for viewing at the Riverside County Assessor’s Office online Property Information Center database. The vacation of Cox and Talbert Streets would need to be addressed as part of any Tentative Tract Map filed over the properties identified in the comment letter. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-100 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-101 Comment Response S-1 For Build Alternatives to be considered feasible, they must meet the project’s purpose and need, described in Section 1.2 of this Final IS/EA, while maintaining operational performance at the interchange ramps, on the I-15 mainline, or at local intersections. Cost of the project and severity of impacts are also considered in addition to right-of-way constraints. On April 11, 2017, the Project Development Team (PDT) identified a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final IS/EA. Your input on the project is greatly appreciated. No roundabouts will be constructed. As documented in Appendix A, CEQA Environmental Checklist, Response XVI.d., the planned roadway and freeway interchange improvements would not increase hazards due to design features, as the construction of the project would be required to adhere to Caltrans design standards. No access or roadway improvements have been planned that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-102This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-103 Comment Response T-1 The commenter did not specify which properties they own. However, it was determined that they are the owner of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 363-090-001 and 363-090-003 based on a comparison of the address provided in the comment card and the address identified for these parcels in this Final IS/EA’s Distribution List provided in Chapter 5. These two parcels are located on the east side of Interstate 15 (I-15) in the vicinity of the planned extension of Camino Del Norte where it intersects with the planned new Franklin Street interchange. See sheet 4 of 11 of Figure 2.3.1 of this Final IS/EA. Based on conceptual engineering drawings at the time of the analysis, the information depicted in Figure 2.3.1 of this Final IS/EA is the anticipated extent of property acquisitions associated with APNs 363-090-001 and 363-090-003. As part of the Franklin Street interchange Final Design, Caltrans and the City of Lake Elsinore would examine the potential impacts of construction of the planned frontage road and identify parcels required for partial and/or full acquisition. All property acquired will be acquired at fair market value at the time of acquisition. The City of Lake Elsinore, in cooperation with Caltrans, must operate under strict guidelines when property must be acquired for transportation projects. If this Project must acquire all or part of a property, the property owner will receive just compensation at a fair and equitable price. The process is designed to protect property owners. If and when a decision is made to acquire your property, discuss the process with a Project relocation advisor. For now, a summary of the Department’s Relocation Assistance Program (RAP) is included in Appendix D of this Final IS/EA. Additional information is available from the following websites: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/pubs/residential_english.pdf http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/owners_and_tenants/ Currently, there are no plans to install new water, sewer, and electrical facilities with the associated extension of Camino Del Norte. Any potential utility conflicts will be addressed as part of the Franklin Street interchange Final Design. The project will not be responsible for installation of any utilities with respect to these parcels. Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 3-104This page intentionally left blank I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 4-1 Chapter 4 List of Preparers This Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. for the City of Lake Elsinore and the California Department of Transportation. The following staff members were involved in the preparation of this IS/EA and/or the supporting technical studies: LSA Associates, Inc. (Project Environmental Analysis) Rob McCann, Principal in Charge David Atwater, Senior Environmental Planner Hilary Haskell, Assistant Environmental Planner Autumn Galambos, Assistant Environmental Planner Sarah Halterman, Assistant Environmental Planner Meredith Canterbury, GIS Specialist, Figures for Technical Reports and IS/EA Tung-chen Chung, Ph.D., INCE Board Certified, Air Quality Technical Report and Noise Study Report Technical Review David Cisneros, GIS Specialist, Figures for Technical Reports and IS/EA Margaret Gooding, GIS/Graphics Specialist, Figures for Technical Reports and IS/EA Riordan Goodwin, Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Property Survey Report Keith Lay, Air Quality Specialist, Air Quality Technical Report Michael Slavick, Senior Air Quality Specialist, Air Quality Conformity Report Jason Lui, Senior Noise Specialist, Noise Study Report and Noise Abatement Decision Report Brooks Smith, Associate, Senior Paleontological Project Manager, Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report King Thomas, Associate, IS/EA Review Denise Woodard, Associate Biologist, Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) and Jurisdictional Delineation Lauren Johnson, Editor Chantik Virgil, Word Processor Mayra Zentner, Office Manager, Production Irma Rojas, Administrative Assistant, Production Chapter 4 List of Preparers I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 4-2 SC Engineering, Inc. (Engineering Lead and Project Management) Sal Chavez, P.E., Project Manager and Engineer Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Project Initial Site Assessment Report) Richard Orr, P.G., REA, Associate Geologist Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Project Geotechnical Report) Kul Bhushan, Ph.D., G.E., Senior Consulting Principal Sinniah Navaratnarajah, P.E., Staff Engineer Curt Scheyhing, P.E., G.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer Estrada Land Planning Joe Esposito, PLA, ASLA, Landscape Architect California Department of Transportation, District 8 (Lead Agency) Emad Makar, Project Manager David Bricker, Deputy Director, Environmental Planning Marie Petry, Senior Environmental Planner Aaron Burton, Senior Environmental Planner Eduardo Moreno Castañeda, Associate Environmental Planner Olufemi A. Odufalu, Branch Chief, Environmental Engineering Maisoon Afaneh, Associate Environmental Planner John Candelaria, Caltrans Environmental Donald Cheng, Transportation Engineer Gabrielle Duff, Environmental Branch Chief John Eddy, Co-Principal Paleontological Investigator Cindy Gano, Maintenance Representative Rebecca Guirado, Caltrans Right-of-Way Christopher Gonzalez, Transportation Engineer Christie Hammond, Office Chief, Environmental Cultural Studies Branch Patrick J. Hally, District NPDES / Storm Water Coordinator Chapter 4 List of Preparers I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 4-3 Gary Jones, Principal Investigator, Prehistoric Archaeology (PQS) Karim Khondokar, Caltrans Stormwater Roy King, Caltrans Hydraulics Will Kuo, Caltrans Stormwater Maria Lamere, Caltrans Right-of-Way Julie Lugaro, Associate Environmental Planner John Mutyaba, Caltrans Oversight Aung Naing, Caltrans Forecasting Anthony Ng, Caltrans Design Reviewer Scott Quinnell, Associate Environmental Planner, Natural Science (Biology) James Shankel, NEPA QC Review John Stanton, District Landscape Architect Daniel To, Transportation Engineer Thomas Tu, Caltrans Operations Tim Wands, Caltrans Landscape Architecture Russell Williams, Senior Environmental Planner California Department of Transportation, District 12 Reza Aurasteh, Ph.D., P.E., Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch Ricardo Caraig, Jr., P.E., Environmental Engineering Riverside County Transportation Commission (Project Coordination) Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager Gustavo Quintero, Project Coordinator City of Lake Elsinore (Project Sponsor) Ati Eskandari, City Engineer Brad Fagrell, City Engineer Chapter 4 List of Preparers I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 4-4 This page intentionally left blank I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-1 Chapter 5 Distribution List The Final IS/EA was distributed to: all individuals who commented on the document, all resource agencies pertinent to the project, and to the elected officials listed in this chapter. Federal Agencies Mark Cohen United States Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 G. Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor United States Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2177 Salk Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert Hewitt National Resource Conservation Service – Area 4 950 Ramona Boulevard, Ste. 6 Palm Springs, CA 92262 State Agencies David Bunn, Director California Department of Conservation 801 K. Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814 William A. Croyle, Acting Director California Department of Water Resources 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 California Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Richard Corey, Executive Director California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95812 Michale A. M. Lauffer, Acting Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Joshua Shaw, Director California Transit Association Director 1415 L Street, Ste. 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Cy Oggins, Chief, Environmental Planning and Management State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Ste. 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825 Leslie MacNair, Regional Manager Inland Deserts Region State of California, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Region 6 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ste. C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer California Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23rd Street, Ste. 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 California Highway Patrol Inland Division (840) Riverside 8118 Lincoln Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd., Ste. 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Thom Porter, Chief, Southern Region California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710 California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street, Room 2221(MS-52) Sacramento, CA 95814 California Public Utilities Commission Attn: Director 320 West 4th Street, Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Rob Oglesby, Executive Director California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-2 Regional/County/ Local Agencies Regional Agencies Southern California Association of Governments Attn: Intergovernmental Review 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Kurt V. Berchtold, Executive Officer Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Street, Ste. 500 Riverside, CA 92501 IGR Coordinator South Coast AQMD 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Rick Bishop, Executive Director Western Riverside Council of Governments 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor MS1032 Riverside, CA 92501-3609 Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer South Coast Air Quality Management District 2186 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Riverside County County of Riverside Public Works Department 3900 Main Street – 4th Floor Riverside, CA 92522 John Hawkins, Fire Chief Riverside County Fire Department Truman Holland Administrative Headquarters 210 West San Jacinto Avenue Perris CA 92570 Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Riverside County Transportation Department 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502-1629 County of Riverside Administration Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Stanley Sniff, Sheriff Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner 4095 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Jason E. Uhley, General Manager Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Headquarters Office 14310 Frederick Street Moreno Valley, CA 92553 John F. Tavaglione, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Gustavo Quintero, Project Coordinator Riverside County Transportation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 210 Riverside, CA 92507 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-3 City of Lake Elsinore Rick De Santiago, Superintendent Public Works 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Grant Taylor, Director Community Development 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Leonard Hollingsworth, Captain Lake Elsinore Police 333 Limited Avenue, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce 132 West Graham Avenue Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 City of Canyon Lake Jim Morrissey, City Planner City of Canyon Lake Planning Department 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Margaret Monson, City Engineer City of Canyon Lake Engineering Department 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Canyon Lake Chamber of Commerce 31640 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 City of Wildomar Matthew C. Bassi, Planning Director 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Dan York, Public Works Director 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 · Wildomar, CA 92595 Wildomar Chamber of Commerce 33751 Mission Trail P.O. Box 885 Wildomar, CA 92595 Other Local Agencies John D. Vega, General Manager Elsinore Valley Water District P.O Box 3000 31315 Chaney Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92531 Dr. Doug Kimberly, District Superintendent Lake Elsinore Unified School District 545 Chaney Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-4 Federal Legislators Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Senator United States Senate 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 915 Los Angeles, CA 90025-3343 Hon. Kamala Harris, Senator United States Senate 312 N. Spring St., Ste. 1748 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Hon. Mark Takano, Congress Member United States House of Representatives, District 41 3403 10th Street, Ste. 610 Riverside, CA 92501 Hon. Ken Calvert, Congress Member United States House of Representatives, District 42 4160 Temescal Canyon Road, Ste. 214 Corona, CA 92883 State Legislators Hon. Jeff Stone, Senator California State Senate, District 28 25186 Hancock Avenue, Ste. 320 Murrieta, CA 92562 Hon. Richard D. Roth, Senator California State Senate, District 31 3737 Main Street, Ste. 104 Riverside, CA 92501 Hon. Mike Morrell, Senator California State Senate, District 23 10350 Commerce Center Drive, Ste. A-220 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Local Elected Officials Riverside County Kevin Jefferies, Supervisor Riverside County Board of Supervisors, First District 4080 Lemon Street- 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 John F. Tavaglione, Supervisor Riverside County Board of Supervisors Second District 4080 Lemon Street- 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Chuck Washington, Supervisor Riverside County Board of Supervisors Third District 4080 Lemon Street- 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 V. Manuel Perez, Supervisor Riverside County Board of Supervisors Fourth District 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 222 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Marion Ashley, Supervisor Riverside County Board of Supervisors Fifth District 14375 Nason St. Ste. 207 Moreno Valley, CA 92555 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-5 City of Canyon Lake Randy Bonner, Mayor City of Canyon Lake 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Vicki Warren, Mayor Pro Tem City of Canyon Lake 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Jordan Ehrenkranz, Councilmember City of Canyon Lake City Council 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Dawn Haggerty, Councilmember City of Canyon Lake City Council 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Larry Greene, Councilmember City of Canyon Lake City Council 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 City of Lake Elsinore Robert Magee, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Natasha Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Daryl Hickman, Councilmember City of Lake Elsinore City Council 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Steve Manos, Councilmember City of Lake Elsinore City Council 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Brian Tisdale, Councilmember City of Lake Elsinore City Council 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 City of Wildomar Timothy Walker, Mayor City of Wildomar 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Ben Benoit, Mayor Pro Tem City of Wildomar 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Bridgette Moore, Councilmember City of Wildomar City Council 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Dustin Nigg, Councilmember City of Wildomar City Council 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Marsha Swanson, Councilmember City of Wildomar City Council 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-6 Interested Groups, Organizations, and Individuals Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians John Parada, Environmental Director 2300 Camino San Ignacio Warner, CA 92086 Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians Director Cultural Resource Center P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 Kupa Cultural Center (Pala Band) Shasta Gaughen, Environmental Director 12196 Pala Mission Rd. Pala, CA 92059 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Steven Estrada, Chairman P.O. Box 609 Hemet, CA 92546 Cultural Resources Planning Specialist Pechanga Cultural Resources Department P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians John Marcus, Vice Chairman P.O. Box 609 Hemet, CA 92546 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Cultural Heritage Program Manager 13000 Fields Road Banning, CA 92220 Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians John Gomez, Project Manager & Cultural Resources P.O. Box 391670 Anza, CA 92539 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Director P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Willie Pink 48310 Pechanga Road Temecula, CA 92592 Lake Elsinore Branch Library 600 West Graham Avenue Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Canyon Lake Library 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92410 Wildomar Library 34303 Mission Trail Wildomar, CA 92595 Riverside County Library Library Management Offices 5840 Mission Boulevard Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Leonard Leichnitz Lumos Communities LLC 2618 San Miguel Dr. # 503 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jim D’Angelo JFD Management, LLC 23705 Crenshaw Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 Cheryl Feskowetz 53219 Flutterbye St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 Ashok and Kay Talwar 31461 Glenbridge Rd. Westlake Village, CA 91361 Alex Gonzalez Tradeland Properties, LLC 40132 Banyan St. Murrieta, CA 92563 Roberta Alexander 29549 Warmsprings Dr. Menifee, CA 92584 Donald. A. Nordine 14259 Imperial Hwy. La Mirada, CA 90638 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-7 Utilities, Services, and Businesses Environmental Planning Team Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 700 N. Alameda Street, US3-230 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Southern California Edison Eastern Division Division Manager 1351 Frances Street Ontario, CA 91761 SoCalGas Centralized Correspondence P.O. Box 3150 San Dimas, CA 91773 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Verizon California 1980 Orange Tree Lane, Ste. 100 Redlands, CA 92374 Level 3 Communications 1550 Marlborough Avenue, Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92507 Southern California Edison P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Property Owners (Property Acquisitions) 363-530-003 WalMart Prop Tax Dept MS 0555 P.O. Box 8050 Bentonville, AR 72712 363-530-004 C/O Vons Co. Inc. 1371 Oakland Blvd., Ste. 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 363-140-090 C/O Property Owner 4199 Campus Drive, Ste. 900 Irvine, CA 92612 363-140-088 C/O Irene E. Vermeulen 11671 Tammany Circle Santa Ana, CA 92705 363-140-089 C/O Prologis West Properties 4545 Airport Way Denver, CO 80239 363-530-005 C/O Property Owner 6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Ste. 230 Woodland Hill, CA 91367 363-140-085 C/O Property Owner 37998 Silvert Fox Court Murrieta, CA 92562 363-530-003 WalMart Prop Tax Dept MS 0555 P.O. Box 8050 Bentonville, AR 72712 363-530-004 C/O Vons Co. Inc. 1371 Oakland Blvd., Ste. 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 363-140-090 C/O Property Owner 4199 Campus Drive, Ste. 900 Irvine, CA 92612 363-171-021 C/O Property Owner 31461 Glenbridge Road Westlake Village, CA 91361 363-171-008 C/O Property Owner 31461 Glenbridge Road Westlake Village, CA 91361 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-8 363-171-010 C/O Savage Savage & Brown P.O. Box 22845 Oklahoma City, OK 73123 363-171-011 C/O Property Owner 6384 Huntington Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 363-171-012 C/O Property Owner 8300 Utica Avenue, 3rd Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 363-171-022 C/O Property Owner 8300 Utica Avenue, 3rd Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 363-171-023 C/O Property Owner 8300 Utica Avenue, 3rd Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 363-171-024 C/O Property Owner 8300 Utica Avenue, 3rd Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 363-530-005 C/O Property Owner 6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Ste. 230 Woodland Hill, CA 91367 363-140-085 C/O Property Owner 37998 Silvert Fox Court Murrieta, CA 92562 363-140-093 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 711 Dallas, TX 75221 363-530-005 C/O Property Owner 6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd., No 230 Woodland Hill, CA 91367 363-140-085 C/O Property Owner 37998 Silvert Fox Court Murrieta, CA 92562 363-140-091 C/O Property Owner 29826 Haun Road, Ste. 305 Menifee, CA 92586 363-140-090 C/O Property Owner 4199 Campus Drive, Ste. 900 Irvine, CA 92612 363-171-004 C/O Property Owner 250 Diamond Drive Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 363-171-003 C/O Property Owner 2716 Via Elevado Pls Vrdes Est, CA 90274 363-140-089 C/O Property Owner 13 Corporate Plaza, Ste. 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 363-140-088 C/O Property Owner 772 W. Town and Country Road Orange, CA 92868 363-172-005 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 52085 DC17 Phoenix, AZ 85072 363-130-044 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 884 Murrieta, CA 92564 363-130-077 Caltrans 464 W. 4th Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 363-150-040 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 1159 Deerfield, IL 60015 363-150-002 C/O Property Owner 17045 Mockingbird Canyon Road Riverside, CA 92504 363-150-025 C/O Property Owner 17045 Mockingbird Canyon Road Riverside, CA 92504 363-150-004 C/O Property Owner 17045 Mockingbird Canyon Road Riverside, CA 92504 363-150-005 C/O Property Owner 151 Diamond Drive Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 373-082-053 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-054 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-9 373-082-055 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-056 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-057 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-005 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-006 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-007 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-008 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-009 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-010 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-011 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-012 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-013 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-014 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-015 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-017 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-018 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-019 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-020 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-021 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-082-022 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-083-018 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 1957 Tracy, CA 95378 373-083-019 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 1957 Tracy, CA 95378 373-083-020 C/O Property Owner 1953 18th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 373-083-021 C/O Property Owner 1250 Cole Street Perris, CA 92570 373-081-015 C/O Sharon Leahy 2853 W. Fitch Chicago IL, 60645 373-081-016 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-017 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-10 373-081-018 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-019 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-020 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-021 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-022 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-023 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-024 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-025 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-001 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-081-002 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-071-013 C/O Property Owner 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport, CA 92660 373-071-014 C/O Property Owner 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport, CA 92660 373-071-015 C/O Property Owner 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport, CA 92660 373-071-016 C/O Property Owner 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport, CA 92660 373-072-009 C/O Nick Prokop 20909 Gold Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 373-072-010 C/O Nick Prokop 20909 Gold Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 373-072-011 C/O Nick Prokop 20909 Gold Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 373-072-012 C/O Property Owner 1980 Old Jerome Highway Clarkdale, AZ 86324 373-072-013 C/O Property Owner 1980 Old Jerome Highway Clarkdale, AZ 86324 373-072-014 C/O Property Owner 1980 Old Jerome Highway Clarkdale, AZ 86324 373-072-015 C/O Property Owner 40132 Banyan Street Murrieta, CA 92563 373-072-016 C/O Property Owner 40132 Banyan Street Murrieta, CA 92563 373-072-017 C/O Property Owner 40132 Banyan Street Murrieta, CA 92563 373-073-016 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-017 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-018 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-019 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-11 373-073-020 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-009 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-010 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-011 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-073-012 C/O Property Owner 2808 Broad Street Newport, CA 92663 373-072-022 C/O Property Owner 40132 Banyan Street Murrieta, CA 92563 363-540-009 C/O Meridith Reynolds 955 Route 9 North South Ambay, NJ 8879 363-540-008 C/O Meridith Reynolds 955 Route 9 North South Ambay, NJ 8879 373-072-029 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92403 373-072-030 C/O Meridith Reynolds 955 Route 9 North South Ambay, NJ 8879 377-330-011 C/O Meridith Reynolds 955 Route 9 North South Ambay, NJ 8879 373-072-021 C/O Property Owner 40132 Banyan Street Murrieta, CA 92563 373-071-018 C/O Property Owner 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 373-061-023 C/O Property Owner 25860 Ridgemoor Road Sun City, CA 92586 373-061-022 PMB 37 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 373-061-021 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 373-061-020 C/O Property Owner 21301 Kinbsbury Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 373-061-026 PMB 37 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 373-061-025 PMB 37 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 373-061-024 PMB 37 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 373-064-012 PMB 37 1280 Bison Avenue, Ste. B9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 377-330-007 C/O Diana L. Slumskie 40480 Via Caballos Murrieta, CA 92562 377-330-010 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 400 Long Beach, CA 90801 377-320-006 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572 377-320-005 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572 Chapter 5 Distribution List I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvement Project 5-12 377-320-008 C/O Property Owner 670 Mill Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 377-320-007 C/O Property Owner 670 Mill Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 363-540-002 C/O Thomas McHugh 900 Larkspur Landing 100 Larkspur, CA 94939 363-540-001 C/O Property Owner 3578 Moultrie Ave San Diego, CA 92117 363-090-011 C/O Property Owner 14259 Imperial Highway La Mirada, CA 90638 363-090-003 C/O Property Owner 14259 Imperial Highway La Mirada, CA 90638 377-330-006 C/O Property Owner 6012 Richfield, Road Yorba Linda, CA 92886 377-330-005 C/O Property Owner 6012 Richfield, Road Yorba Linda, CA 92886 377-340-007 C/O Steven Johnson 31882 Monarch Crest Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 377-370-009 C/O Steven Johnson 31882 Monarch Crest Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 377-340-010 C/O Steven Johnson 31882 Monarch Crest Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 377-340-011 C/O Steven Johnson 31882 Monarch Crest Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 377-340-018 C/O Property Owner 1859 Swan Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92626 377-340-019 C/O Property Owner 1859 Swan Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92626 377-340-014 C/O Charles G Tunstall P.O. Box 546 Wildomar, CA 92595 377-340-021 C/O Charles G Tunstall P.O. Box 546 Wildomar, CA 92595 377-340-020 C/O Juan Carlos Rotellini 41605 Elm Street, Ste. 204 Murrieta, CA 92562 377-340-015 C/O Property Owner P.O. Box 546 Wildomar, CA 92595 377-260-005 C/O Spyglass Ranch ASLI 923 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 377-274-016 C/O Property Owner 670 Mill Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530