Furthermore, SCAG's 2016 financially constrained RTP adopted in April 2016, Amendment 1 adopted in April 2017 and Amendment 2 adopted in July 2017, were used to develop the roadway network for the project. The project completion year identified in the RTP/Amendment 1/Amendment 2 was used to determine if the project should be included as future roadway Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 136 313
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures improvements when developing the Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2045) traffic forecasts.
RTP projects that were included in the Future Year roadway networks are:
• RTP ID 3A04WT144: Widen Cherry Valley Boulevard from two to four lanes from Desert Lawn Drive to Noble Street. Noble Street is located approximately four miles east of the project footprint. The Cherry Valley Boulevard overcrossing bridge was assumed to remain as a two-lane cross section in the 2045 No Build Scenario.
• RTP ID RIV060117: Widen Singleton Road from two to four lanes from Woodhouse Road to Calimesa Boulevard. Widen eastbound 1-10 on -ramp from one to two lanes. Widen westbound 1-10 off -ramp from one to three lanes. Construct eastbound 1-10 off -ramp with three lanes. Construct westbound on -ramp with two lanes.
• RTP ID RIV060115: Widen Oak Valley Parkway from two to six lanes from 500 feet west of Desert Lawn Drive to Golf Club Drive. Widen eastbound on - ramp from one to two lanes. Widen westbound on -ramp from one to three lanes. Widen westbound and eastbound off -ramps from one to four lanes.
Construct 1-10 eastbound and 1-10 westbound loop on -ramps. • RTP ID 3TKO4MA12: 1-10 add/construct new 1-10 eastbound truck climbing lane from San Bernardino County Line to I-10/SR-60 Junction.
Traffic forecasts for study locations were developed using the difference method, which is consistent with methodologies delineated in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report (NCHRP) 765 published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB): Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project Level Planning and Design.
As the Base Year model reflects 2012, and the Future Year reflects projected uses in 2040, the model accounts for 28 years of growth. Existing volumes reflect 2019 conditions; therefore the 28 years of growth assumed in the model was applied to existing traffic volumes to develop the Design Year (2045) forecasts. In order to accurately account for all proposed improvements in the study area the following models were used to develop future forecasts:
• Base Year — Base Year (2012) network and assumes no roadway improvements.
• Opening Year No Project — Opening Year (2025) network with the addition of projects R1V060117, RIV060115, and 3TKO4MA12 and interpolated land use between Base Year (2012) and Future Year (2040) to represent 2025 conditions.
• Opening Year Plus Project - Opening Year (2025) network with the addition of projects R1V060117, RIV060115, 3TKO4MA12, and the proposed project, Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 137 314
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures and interpolated land use between Base Year (2012) and Future Year (2040) to represent 2025 conditions.
• Future Year No Project - 2040 network with the addition of projects 3A04WT144, RIV060117, RIV060115, 3TKO4MA12, and Future Year (2040) land use.
• Future Year Plus Project - 2040 network with the addition of projects 3A04WT144, RIV060117, RIV060115, 3TKO4MA12, the proposed project, and Future Year (2040) land use.
Opening Year (2025) forecasts were developed using liner interpolation between Existing (2019) traffic volumes and the Design Year (2045) forecasts. Conservation of flow was applied to all forecasted volumes to ensure volumes are balanced along the study corridors. As the project improvements will be operational improvements and no major capacity enhancing improvements are assumed in the study area, only one set of traffic volumes was developed for future year scenarios.
Average daily traffic (ADT) on the freeway mainline were obtained using the most recent available PeMS data: a number of estimated volumes between 2012 and 2017. As the TOAR's assessment for the project is based on 2019 traffic data, the 2017 PeMS data was grown to represent 2019 traffic conditions under the PTVR. The appropriate growth rate was determined by projecting growth for the 1-10 mainline from the travel demand model between the Base Year and Future Year was compared to measured growth from 2016 to 2017 based on PeMS data. The growth rate for the 1-10 eastbound and westbound mainlines are two percent per year.
Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology
Freeway Analysis: For freeway mainline and ramp junctions, operation analyses were conducted using a VISSIM 10 microscopic multi -modal traffic flow simulation software package developed by PTV Group. All components of freeway operations (i.e., mainline, on -ramp merge, off -ramp diverge, and weaving sections) operate as a single integrated system with congestion and queues affecting both upstream and downstream traffic operations. VISSIM was used to capture the effects between all the freeway components and the system -wide measures of effectiveness (MOE). The freeway segments were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM) and the methodologies contained in VISSIM are consistent with the procedures and methodologies of HCM. Finally, use of VISSIM ensures consistency with the analysis completed for the 1-10 Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane project.
Separate VISSIM models were developed to represent the AM and PM peak periods under existing conditions. The key traffic data used for model development include geometric, traffic flow, origin -destination, and field observation data. The VISSIM models were calibrated and validated to existing conditions using the criteria suggested in Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software and additional criteria developed Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 138 315
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures by Fehr & Peers. The calibrated and validated models were used to generate performance measures including freeway mainlines/ramps and intersections LOS consistent with HCM 6th Edition and other system -wide MOEs including travel times, average speeds, vehicles served, and vehicle -hours -delay.
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, which initiated a process to change transportation impact analyses completed in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. SB 743 eliminates level of service (LOS) as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under the CEQA and provides a new performance metric, vehicle miles travelled (VMT). SB 743 went into effect on July 1, 2020.
Pursuant to SB 743, Caltrans has developed guidelines and significance thresholds for VMT assessment for transportation projects. However, Caltrans has determined that certain projects initiated prior to December 28, 2018 that have begun the environmental documentation milestone prior to September 15, 2020 can be screened from preparing a VMT assessment. The proposed project meets these requirements, and Caltrans has determined the project would not likely lead to a substantial increase in VMT. Thus, an analysis of VMT is not required, and the use of LOS is used as the metric for this project.
For the project, LOS was calculated for each study facility to evaluate traffic operations. LOS is a quantitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. The freeway LOS was calculated for each study facility based on density in number of vehicles per hour per lane. Table 2.1.9-1, Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction/Weave Section LOS Threshold, describes the LOS thresholds for freeway sections identified in the HCM.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 139 316
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-1: Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction/Weave Section LOS Threshold
Item 9.
LOS
Description
Density
(vplpm)1
Mainline
(Basic)
Density
(vplpm)
Mainline
(Weave)
Density (vplpm)'
Ramp/Merge/
Diverge
A
Free -flow speeds prevail. Vehicles are
almost completely unimpeded in their
ability to maneuver within the traffic
stream.
— 11
11 to 18
> 10 to 20
> 10 to 20
C
Flow with speeds at or near free -flow
speeds. Freedom to maneuver within
the traffic stream is noticeably
restricted, and lane changes require
more care and vigilance on the part of
the driver.
> 18 to 26
>20 to 28
>20 to 28
D
Speeds decline slightly with
increasing flows. Freedom to
maneuver with the traffic stream is
more noticeably limited, and the driver
experiences reduced physical and
psychological comfort.
>26 to 35
>28 to 35
>28 to 35
E
Operation at capacity. There are
virtually no usable gaps within the
traffic stream, leaving little room to
maneuver. Any disruption can be
expected to produce a breakdown
with ueuin .
> 35 to 45
>35 to 43
>352
F
Represents a breakdown in flow.
Density >45
or volume
over capacity
greater than
or equal to
one (V/C>_1)
Density >43
or volume
over capacity
greater than
or equal to
one (V/C>_1)
Density >45 or
volume over
capacity greater
than or equal to one
(V/C>_1)
Notes: 1. Density is reported in vehicles per lane per mile (vplpm).
2. The maximum density for ramp junctions under LOS E is not defined in the HCM. The maximum density for basic segments of 45 vplpm was assumed to apply to ramp junctions.
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
The peak -hour density calculations are consistent with the definitions from the HCM, which defines four freeway section types: merge, diverge, weave, and basic. Merge and diverge sections, which refer to the freeway ramp junctions, are defined as the section of the freeway 1,500 feet downstream of an on - ramp and upstream of an off -ramp, respectively. The density is measured over the two adjacent freeway through lanes plus any auxiliary lanes. A weaving section occurs between a successive on -ramp and off -ramp pair connected by an auxiliary lane, and the maximum weaving distance between the ramps is no longer a fixed distance but determined by the weaving/total Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 140 317
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures volumes and number of weaving lanes in the HCM. Basic freeway sections include all other freeway sections that are not included in a merge, diverge, or weaving section. The densities at weaving and basic sections are measured across all mixed -flow freeway lanes (including both through lanes and auxiliary lanes).
Intersection Analysis: The HCM 6th Edition methodology for signalized intersections estimates the average control delay for vehicles at the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, the methodology estimates the worst -case movement control delay for two-way stop -controlled intersections and the average control delay for all way stop -controlled intersections. The LOS was calculated for each study facility based on average intersection delay to evaluate traffic operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 2.1.9-2, Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections and Table 2.1.9-3, Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections.
Table 2.1.9-2: Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections Item 9.
Level of
Service
Description
Average Control
Delay
(seconds/Vehicle)
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
10.0 to 15.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and or/longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. >15.0 to 25.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>25.0 to 35.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>35.0 to 50.0
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. >50.0
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 141 318
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-3: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Item 9.
Level of
Service
Description
Average Stopped
Delay per Vehicle
(seconds
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
_
10.0 to 20.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and or/longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
>20.0 to 35.0
>35.0 to 55.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios.
Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>55.0 to 80.0
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
>80.0
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020) Analysis Evaluation Criteria.
The analysis evaluation criteria described below were used to determine acceptable traffic operating conditions and are based on the LOS policies identified by Caltrans and the City of Calimesa.
City of Calimesa
The City of Calimesa has adopted LOS "C" as the minimum standard of operation for the intersections and road segments per the Calimesa General Plan. A significant traffic impact occurs if the addition of project generated trips causes an intersection to change from an acceptable LOS C or better to a deficient LOS D, E or F; or if project traffic increases the delay at any intersection already operating at an deficient LOS D, E or F. All intersections and roadways that are forecast to operate with LOS D, E or F are expected to be mitigated to the appropriate minimum standard or to conditions consistent with the no project condition.
Caltrans
The Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states, "Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" on State highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS." The following significance criteria are utilized for this analysis for Caltrans facilities:
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 142 319
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Freeways
Causes a freeway segment operating at an acceptable LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or LOS F and causes one of the following conditions:
• Travel time on the freeway segment to increase in the study area • Decreases the average travel speed along the corridor • Decreases the volume of vehicles served along the corridor Causes an increase in density on a freeway segment operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F and causes one of the following conditions:
• Travel time on the freeway segment to increase in the study area • A decrease in the average travel speed along the corridor • A decrease in the volume of vehicles served along the corridor Intersections
Causes a signalized intersection operating at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or LOS F. For signalized intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F, the project increases delay at those locations.
Causes an unsignalized intersection operating at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or LOS F and satisfy the peak hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation. For unsignalized intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F, increases delay at those locations and causes the intersection to satisfy the peak hour volume warrant for traffic signal installation.
Existing Traffic Operations
Peak period AM (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) traffic volumes at study intersections were collected in February 2019. Twenty -four-hour tube counts with classification data were also collected on Cherry Valley Boulevard at three locations along the 1-10 Cherry Valley overcrossing. Refer to Figure
2.1.9-2, Existing (2019) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes, for peak hour freeway volumes in the study area. Existing peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at study intersections are shown on Figure 2.1.9-3, Existing (2019) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes.
Freeway/Roadway Operations Analysis
Tables 2.1.9-4 through 2.1.9-7, show the AM and PM peak hour density and LOS for the study freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions on 1-10 eastbound and westbound under the Existing 2019 traffic year conditions.
During the AM peak hour, all the study segments on eastbound 1-10 operated at LOS C or better. All westbound segments south of Cherry Valley Boulevard operate at LOS C or better, and all westbound segments north of Cherry Valley Boulevard operate at LOS F. During the PM peak hour, all study segments on eastbound and westbound 1-10 operate at LOS C or better.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 143 320
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-2: Existing (2019) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Source' Fehr & Peers. Tra1Nc C aeons &se o's Report, Noerember 2020
QNOTTO SCALE
01/2621.1A1 169171
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Existing (2019) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 144 Figure 2.1.9-2
Item 9.
321
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-3: Existing (2019) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes See Inset A4°
•
R1
0 LEGEND
0 Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
4— Lane Configuration
® Stop Sign
IF Signalized
Inset B
Beaumont
5e Inset B
4. 1 1-10 EB On Ramp/Singleton Rd
2. 1-10 WB Off-Ramp/Singleton Rd
a. Cherry Valley Blvd/Palmer Avedaesed Lawn or
5 62(25)
36J'()25)
F62(27)
g
rrN
413a,a
165 (99)
.-47(14)
r 11 ((4)
130 (�1�
13 (0)
Y•
re
re
a
271 (181)�r
104(31)
46(16)
Il
-.-.
a-
N
5. 1-10 EB Ramps(Cherry Valley Blvd
6. 1-10 WB Ramps Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Calimesa Blvd/Cherry
i
`
® - w
Cherry Vann SP,
Valley Blvd
165 (26)
444 (256)
€
I
w EL.s, -
4. ®
'ar 164 (215)
49 (28)
51 t
o
C VA NI.
e
341 (198)
119 (97)
590 (317)
100(65( y
7 405 (273)
341(462)'
i
•
--
Wes!
1.,',
335 (32)
211(461)--'
9A. 1-10 WB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
93.1-10 WB Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkw
1509 (324)
r' 366 (24D)
0�
95 (49}
363 (442} -•
F.
4A. Cherry Valley Blvd/New Roberts Rd 4B. Cherry Valley Blvd/Old Roberts Rd New eNvIewle
1 (1)1
4(3)�
0 e a
•Che moo
0 7 (1)
4- 342 (710)
2 (0)
1 (1)
884 (410)-a
0 (0)
0 8A. 1-10 EB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy 643.1-10 EB Loop On-Ramp1Oak Valley Pkwy 0 ▪ 353(296)
▪ 200 (133)
Source'. Fehr & Peers: Trakic 0perahon6Analysis Repot: November 2027 Q1207 TO SCALE
6112021 26169171
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Existing (2019) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 2.1.9.3
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 145 322
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 146 323
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-4: Existing Conditions (2019) Eastbound 1-10 Operations (AM)
1-10 Eastbound Segment
FTypey
LOS'
Density'
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
12.9 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.1 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Basic
B
13.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
13.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
A
9.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley
Parkway Off -Ramp
Basic
B
13.7 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.6 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
14.3 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
Bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-5: Existing Conditions (2019) Eastbound 1-10 Operations (PM)
1-10 Eastbound Segment
Facility
Type
LOS'
Density'
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
18.2 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
15.4 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Basic
C
18.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
20.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
13.5 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
15.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley
Parkway Off -Ramp
Basic
B
16.5 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
16.7 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
15.1 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per m7e) are reported. Bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 147 324
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-6: Existing Conditions (2019) Westbound 1-10 Operations (AM)
1-10 Westbound Se ment
Facilit T e
LOS1
Densit
South of Oak Valle Parkwa
Basic
B
17.6 Oak Valle Parkwa Off -Ram
Diver e
B
17.9 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On- Ram
Basic
B
15.0 Oak Valle Parkwa On -Ram
Mere
B
15.7 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Basic
C
18.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
D
33.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
F
86.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
F
117.0
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Off -Ramp
Basic
F
112.9
Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
116.8
North of Singleton Road
Basic
F
114.8
Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported. Bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-7: Existing Conditions (2019) 1-10 Operations Westbound (PM)
1-10 Westbound Segment
Facility Type
LOS'
Density'
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
18.2 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
19.1 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On- Ramp
Basic
B
15.1 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
13.6 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Basic
B
17.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
17.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
15.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
15.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Off -Ramp
Basic
C
18.5 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
19.3 North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
17.3 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported. Bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Intersection Operations Analysis
Tables 2.1.9-8, Existing Conditions (2019) Intersection Operations (AM), and
2.1.9-9, Existing Conditions (2019) Intersection Operations (PM), shows the delay (in seconds per vehicle) and LOS for the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing 2019 conditions. During the AM peak hour, all the study intersections operate at LOS C or better, except the intersections at 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Singleton Road, Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard, 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 148 325
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Boulevard, 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Oak Valley Parkway, 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Oak Valley Parkway, which operate at LOS E or F. During the PM peak hour, all the study intersections operate at LOS C or better.
Table 2.1.9-8: Existing Conditions (2019) Intersection Operations (AM) Item 9.
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1-10 Eastbound On-Ramp/Singleton Road
Uncontrolled
A
0.7 (WBL)
1-10 Westbound Off-Ramp/Singleton Road
Side -street Stop
E
36.8 (NBL)
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive
Signal
C
34.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
B
13 (NBT)
Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
All -way Stop
E
36.4 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard All -way Stop
A
8.8 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard All -way Stop
E
39.3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side -street Stop
C
18.5 (SBL)
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
All -way Stop
F
99.5 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
All -way Stop
F
88.3 Notes: WBL=westbound left; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; SBL=southbound left
1. For signal and all way stop control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side street control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-9: Existing Conditions (2019) Intersection Operations (PM) Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1-10 Eastbound On-Ramp/Singleton Road
Uncontrolled
A
0.6 (WBL)
1-10 Westbound Off-Ramp/Singleton Road
Side -street Stop
A
7.6 (NBR)
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive
Signal
A
8.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
A
7.6 (NBL)
Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
All -way Stop
A
2.5 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard All -way Stop
C
22.6 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard All -way Stop
A
5 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side -street Stop
B
11.1 (SBL)
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
All -way Stop
C
22.9 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
All -way Stop
C
20.3 Notes: WBL=westbound left; NBR= northbound right; NBL=northbound left; SBL=southbound left
1. For signal and all way stop control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side street control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 149 326
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Queueing Analysis
Table 2.1.9-10, Existing Conditions (2019) Intersection Queueing Summary, summarizes the average maximum queue results under Existing 2019 conditions at the ramp terminal and nearby intersections.
Table 2.1.9-10: Existing Conditions (2019) Intersection Queueing Summary Item 9.
Intersection/Movements
Storage
Length
Queue
Length
AM
Queue
Length
PM
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
500
120
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBT
550
580
550
Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBL
50 100
170
Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT
50 105
140
Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBR
50 105
140
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 50 150
20 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR 50 150
20 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL 550
720
300
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 550
670
250
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
125
275
60 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
125
230
20 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / WBL 700
760
240
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / WBT
700
740
220
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBL
700
750
470
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBT
700
770
490
Notes: EB=eastbound; NB=northbound; WB=westbound
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements.
2. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Based on Table 2.1.9-10, the following turning movements currently exceed available storage capacity during AM and PM peak hours:
• Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive - Eastbound Left (AM Only)
• Cherry Valley Boulevard /Roberts Road
- Northbound Through (AM Only)
• Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
- Westbound Left
- Westbound Through
- Westbound Right
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
- Eastbound Through (AM Only)
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 150 327
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures - Eastbound Right (AM Only)
• I-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
- Eastbound Through (AM Only)
- Eastbound Left (AM Only)
• Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
- Eastbound Through (AM Only)
- Eastbound Left (AM Only)
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
- Westbound Through (AM Only)
- Westbound Left (AM Only)
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
- Eastbound Through (AM Only)
- Eastbound Left (AM Only)
Storage capacity on the off -ramps is adequate to serve AM and PM peak hour traffic under Existing 2019 conditions. There is a substantial queue along Cherry Valley Boulevard between Old Roberts Road and Calimesa Boulevard. This is primarily caused by the limited capacity due to the all -way stop control at these intersections.
System -wide Performance
While LOS is a typical indicator of transportation facility performance, the system -wide performance metrics have become effective measurements in evaluating transportation system. The system -wide performance measures used for this project include travel time, travel speeds, number of vehicles served by the study network, and vehicle -hours -delay. Table 2.1.9-11, Existing Conditions (2019) Performance Summary, summarizes the existing AM and PM peak hour system -wide performance measures along 1-10.
Tables 2.1.9-12 and 2.1.9-13 summarize the existing travel time on 1-10, between the Singleton Road and Oak Valley Parkway overcrossings, for cars and trucks.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 151 328
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-11: Existing Conditions Performance Summary Item 9.
Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles per Hour (mph)
31.3 57.5
Volume Served
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
9,909
8,683
Total Distance Time
Vehicle Miles Travelled [VMT] (miles)
33,297
32,350
Total Travel Time
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
1,065
562.5
Average Delay Per Vehicle
Seconds
176.6
15.2 Total Delay
Vehicle -Hours -Delay (hours)
515
39 Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-12: Travel Time — Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway
Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.1 4.1
Trucks
Minutes
4.4 4.1
All
Minutes
4.1 4.1
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-13: Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
9.5 4.1
Trucks
Minutes
10.5 4.1
All
Minutes
9.5 4.1
Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Travel time and average speed are similar in both directions during both peak hours with small variations due to directionality during commute periods. In addition, other system -wide traffic metrics (number of vehicles served by the network, vehicle -hours -delay, and average delay per vehicle) were reported for both the AM and PM peak hours. Consistent with observations in the field, higher levels of congestion occur during the AM peak hour. This is confirmed by the increase in average delay per vehicle, 176.6 seconds during the AM peak hour compared to 15.2 seconds during the PM peak hour. Total delay during the AM peak hour also indicates higher levels of congestion during the AM peak hour.
Traffic Safety Review
Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System — Transportation Systems Network (TASAS — TSN) data was reviewed for collisions reported on the mainline, on -ramps and off -ramps at the existing Cherry Valley Boulevard and 1-10 interchange for the three-year period between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020. Tables 2.1.9-14, Collision Summary — Actual Collision Rate, and 2.1.9-15, Collision Summary — Statewide Average Collision Rate, Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 152 329
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures below, summarize the Fatal and Fatal plus Injury collision rates for the Actual Collision Rates and Statewide Average Collision Rates. Table 2.1.9-16, Primary Collision Factors, summarizes the collision types for the interchange.
Table 2.1.9-14: Collision Summary — Actual Collision Rate Location
Post Mile
Fatal'
I juary'
Total'
1-10 Mainline from Singleton Road to Oak
Valley Parkway
R2.1 to
R3.8
0.000
0.21 0.75
1-10 Eastbound Off -Ramp to Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R2.867
0.000
0.13 0.38
1-10 Eastbound On -Ramp from Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R3.189
0.000
0.00 0.68
1-10 Westbound Off -Ramp to Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R3.246
0.000
0.00 0.00
I-10 Westbound On -Ramp from Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R2.896
0.000
0.12 0.25
Notes: Bold text indicates that actual collision rate is greater than statewide average collision rate.
1. Ramp collisions are per Million Vehicle (MV). Mainline collisions are per Million Vehicle Miles (MVM).
Table 2.1.9-15: Collision Summary — Statewide Average Collision Rate Location
Post Mile
Fatal'
I juary'
Total'
1-10 Mainline from Singleton Road to Oak
Valley Parkway
R2.1 to
R3.8
0.004
0.28 0.87
1-10 Eastbound Off -Ramp to Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R2.867
0.008
0.39 1.03
1-10 Eastbound On -Ramp from Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R3.189
0.002
0.23 0.63
1-10 Westbound Off -Ramp to Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R3.246
0.008
0.39 1.03
1-10 Westbound On -Ramp from Cherry Valley
Boulevard
R2.896
0.002
0.23 0.63
Notes: Bold text indicates that actual collision rate is greater than statewide average collision rate.
1. Ramp collisions are per Million Vehicle (MV). Mainline collisions are per Million Vehicle Miles (MVM).
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 153 330
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-16: Ramp Collision Types
Item 9.
Location
Head-
On
Side
Swipe
Rear
End
Broadside
Hit
Object
Overturn
Auto-
Pedestrian
Other
1-10 Mainline
from Singleton
Road to Oak
Valley Parkway
1.2%
22.2%
50.0%
1.2%
19.8%
3.1%
0.0%
2.5%
1-10 Eastbound
Off -Ramp to
Cherry Valley
Boulevard
0.0%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Eastbound
On -Ramp from
Cherry Valley
Boulevard
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Westbound
Off -Ramp to
Cherry Valley
Boulevard
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Westbound
On -Ramp from
Cherry Valley
Boulevard
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0 50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Notes: 1. Represents a total of 12 ramp collisions during this time period.
As shown in Table 2.1.9-16, collision data shows that rear end (50 percent) and side swipe (22.2 percent) are the majority of collisions along 1-10. The majority of the collisions along the eastbound off -ramp are side swipe (66.7 percent), while the eastbound on -ramp are hit object (100 percent). Majority of the collisions along the westbound on -ramp are hit object (50 percent) and overturn (50 percent), while the westbound off -ramp had no collisions recorded. No pedestrian collisions were reported under the current stop - controlled configuration according to TASAS and TIMS (Transportation Injury Mapping System) data in the past three years, from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2020.
Table 2.1.9-17, Primary Collision Factors, below, summarizes the primary collision factors for the interchange. Collision data shows that majority of the collision factors along 1-10 are speeding (48.8 percent) and other violations (17.9 percent). Majority of the collision factors along the eastbound off -ramp (66.7 percent) and on -ramp (100 percent) are improper turns. Majority of the collisions along the westbound on -ramp are influence of alcohol (50 percent) and improper turns (50 percent), while the westbound off -ramp had no collision factors.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 154 331
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-17: Primary Collision Factors
Item 9.
Location
HBD
FTC
FTY
IT
SPD
OV
ID
OTD
UNK
FA
NS
1-10 Mainline from
Singleton Road to
Oak Valley
Parkway
6.8%
1.2%
0.0%
18.5%
48.8%
17.9%
0.0%
4.9%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Eastbound Off -
Ramp to Cherry
Valley Boulevard
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.7%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Eastbound On -
Ramp from Cherry
Valley Boulevard
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Westbound
Off -Ramp to Cherry
Valley Boulevard
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1-10 Westbound
On -Ramp from
Cherry Valley
Boulevard
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Notes: HBD = Influence of Alcohol; FTC = Following Too Closely; FTY = Failure to Yeld; ID = Improper Driving; IT = Improper Turn; SPD = Speeding; OV = Other Violations; NS = Not Stated; OTD = Other Than Driver; UNK = Unknown; FA = Fell Asleep Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, no reconstruction or improvements would be made to the existing I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange or the local roadway (Calimesa Boulevard). As a result, the No -Build Alternative would not result in temporary adverse effects related to traffic and circulation.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Construction activities associated with the Build Alternatives would result in temporary traffic effects related to the circulation of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the project area. Construction under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are anticipated to take approximately 24 months. Full freeway closures on 1- 10 would be required for placement of the new pre -cast Cherry Boulevard structure. Ramps would require closures at intersections with local roads.
Short-term or weekend closures are expected for certain phases; however, no long-term street closures are anticipated or would be allowed. Proposed ramp closures would be identified during the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) phase. Traffic -handling plans and stage -construction plans will be developed to minimize queueing on the 1-10 mainline. These efforts will include off-peak hour construction hours (primarily in the late night, early morning, and weekends) and clearly marked detours near the closures.
Implementation of the Build Alternatives would include preparation and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) during the PS&E phase. The Caltrans Transportation Management Plan Guidelines Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 155 332
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures (TMP Guidelines) identifies the processes, roles, and responsibilities for preparing and implementing TMPs, as well as useful strategies for reducing congestion and managing work zone traffic impacts. The primary objective of the TMP is to maintain safe movement for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists through the construction zone, as well as minimize traffic delays during the construction period. The TMP prepared for the project will implement alternate route strategies to minimize adverse effects to roadways and reduce potential congestion.
The TMP will include, but not be limited to, the following six major elements:
• Public information/public awareness campaign
• Traveler information strategies
• Incident management
• Construction strategies
• Demand management
• Alternate route strategies
With implementation of the TMP for the Build Alternatives, adverse temporary effects related to traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclists would be minimized.
Permanent Impacts
As noted above, the following scenarios are considered in the traffic analysis:
• Opening Year (2025) No -Build Alternative
• Opening Year (2025) Build Alternatives 3 and 4
• Design Year (2045) No -Build Alternative
• Design Year (2045) Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Future traffic volumes and turning movements for all study scenarios for 1-10 and Cherry Valley Boulevard are presented in this section of the IS/EA and/or in Figures 2.1.9-4 through 2.1.9-15.
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, no improvements would be made to the existing I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange or the roadways associated with the project other than routine roadway maintenance. Both Opening Year 2025 and Design Year 2045 scenarios assume background improvements over existing conditions.
• Opening Year (2025): The ramp intersections are signalized as an interim improvement.
• Design Year (2045): Cherry Valley Boulevard is widened from two to four lanes between Desert Lawn Drive and Noble Street in 2035 (RTP ID Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 156 333
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3A04WT144). Left -turn and right -turn pockets are not constructed, and the ramp intersections operate with permissive left -turn phasing.
Opening Year (2025): The No -Build Alternative during Opening Year 2025 conditions would assume no improvements to the existing I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange. Traffic operations for the No -Build Alternative were evaluated under the Opening Year 2025 conditions.
Freeway operations were analyzed under Opening Year 2025 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. Figure 2.1.9-4, Opening Year (No -Build) 2025 Peak Hour Freeway Volumes and Tables 2.1.9-18 through 2.1.9-21 show the AM and PM peak hour LOS and delay for the eastbound and westbound 1-10 study segments. As shown in Tables 2.1.9-18 and 2.1.9-19, during the AM peak hour, westbound 1-10 segments at the Cherry Valley on -ramp to Singleton off -ramp and Singleton off -ramp would operate at an unacceptable LOS D. As shown in Tables 2.1.9-20 and 2.1.9-21, during the PM peak hour, eastbound 1-10 segments at the Singleton Road on -ramp and Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp would operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse. All other eastbound and westbound 1-10 segments would perform at an acceptable LOS C or better.
Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-18: Opening Year 2025 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segments
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
10.1 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.4 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
12.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
11.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
A
8.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
12.1 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
11.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
10.3 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.4 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
12.4 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes — indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 157 334
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-4: Opening Year (No -Build) 2025 Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Source' Fehr Z. Peers, Traffic Operatcns Mays Report, Novemter 2020
QNOT TO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Opening Year (No -Build) 2025 Peak Hour Freeway Volumes 01/2121 JN 1Wf71
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 158 Figure 2.1.9.4
Item 9.
335
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-19: Opening Year 2025 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
21.5 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
20.1 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
B
18.1 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
C
20.6 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
25.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
25.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
C
22.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
C
25.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
D
28.7 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
D
29.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
27.7 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-20: Opening Year 2025 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segments
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
14.2 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
D
33.9 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
19.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
43.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
13.5 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
A
6.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
13.7 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.2 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
10.4 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.5 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
12.5 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 159 336
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-21: Opening Year 2025 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
FTypey
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
20.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
19.2 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
B
16.2 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
16.8 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
20.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
19.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
18.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Off -Ramp Basic
C
22.3 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
21.5 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
20.8 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes — indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
The AM and PM peak hour LOS and delay for each intersection is summarized in Figure 2.1.9-5, Opening Year (No -Build) 2025 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Tables 2.1.9-22, Opening Year 2025 Conditions - Intersection Operations (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour) and 2.1.9-23, Opening Year 2025 Conditions - Intersection Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour). As shown in Table 2.1.9-22 and 2.1.9-23, during the AM peak hour, the Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive, Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road, 1-10 eastbound off/on- ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard, 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard, and Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS E or worse. As shown in Table 2.1.9- 23, during the PM peak hour, the Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive, Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road, 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard. All other intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under the Opening Year 2025 conditions. It is therefore anticipated that, as local development continues to occur and 1-10 mainline traffic conditions worsen over time, these intersections would experience overcapacity by the year 2025.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 160 337
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-5: Opening Year (No -Build) 2025 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes LEGEND
0 Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
4 Lane Configuration
es
Stop Sign
Signalized
Beaumont
Inset B
r
Beaumont
Sop Inset 8
A
1.1-10 EB Ramps/Singleton Rd
2 1-10 WE Rampsl0mgleton Rd
3. Cherry Valley Blvd/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Or
4A. Cherry Valley Blvdl13ew Rohans Rd
46. Cherry Valley Blvd/014 Roberts Rd
70 (40)
190 (150)
8.1.10 WE; Ramps5Chany Valley Blvd
Peke.. Moe
aa—
mvv
4 0 "
41LL
280(190) „
110(40)-
50 (20)
170 (100)
50 (20)
20(10)
I11*
NON
o err �a
vs
00 o
4L- CA CD
_,b?.i.11LL
160 (300) „
10 (20)
10 (50)
8B. 1-10 EB Loop On-RamplOak Valley Pkwy
5.1-10 EB Remps!Chony Valley Blvd
7. Cellmesa Blvd/Cherry Vahey Blvd
8A.1-10 EB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
9A-1.10 WB Ramps/Oak 541185 Pkwy 05 1-12 WB Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkvey 470 (750)
610 (380)
560 (330)
Source: Fehr & Peas, Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020 -` NOT TO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Opening Year (No -Build) 2025 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 110021 .111 tern
Figure 2.1.9-5
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 161 338
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 162 339
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-22: Opening Year 2025 Conditions - Intersection Operations (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour)
Item 9.
Intersection
Control
LOS
Dela
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ram s/Sin leton Road
Side Street Sto
A
9.9 SBR
2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ram s/Sin Teton Road
Side Street Sto
A
8.0 NBR
3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn
Drive
Signal
F
499.7
4A. Cher Valle Boulevard/Roberts Road
Si nal
F
166.5
4B. Old Roberts Road/Cher Valle Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
E
70.4 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
E
57.4 7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/Signal
F
146.4
(WBT)
8. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
11.1 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
A
8.4 Notes: SBR=southbound right; NBR= northbound right; WBT=westbound through
1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Opening Year (2025) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-23: Opening Year 2025 Conditions - Intersection Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
12.6 (SBL)
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
11.1 (NBR)
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
F
378.1
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
F
318.6
Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
F
125.8
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
C
27.1 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/Signal
C
14.2 (SBL)
1-10Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
17.1 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
11.0 Notes: SBL=southbound left; NBR= northbound right
1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 163 340
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Opening Year (2025) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Turning movements and queuing for each intersection and ramp terminal were analyzed and reported under the Opening Year 2025 conditions. The following turning movements would exceed storage capacity under the No - Build Scenario during AM and PM peak hour:
• Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Northbound Left
- Southbound Left (PM Only)
Eastbound Left
- Westbound Left (AM Only)
• Cherry Valley Boulevard /Roberts Road
- Northbound Through
Northbound Right
- Southbound Through (PM Only)
Southbound Right
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Southbound Left (PM Only)
- Southbound Through (PM Only)
Southbound Right (PM Only)
- Eastbound Through
- Eastbound Right
Westbound Left (PM Only)
- Westbound Through (PM Only)
• I-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 164 341
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Eastbound Through (AM Only)
Eastbound Left (AM Only)
• Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through (AM Only)
- Westbound Right (AM Only)
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
- Southbound Left
Eastbound Right
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
- Northbound Left
Queuing: As summarized in Table 2.1.9-24, No -Build Alternative Intersection Queue Summary (Opening Year 2025), substantial queueing would occur on 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard with spillback onto the freeway mainline during the PM peak hour. In addition, extended queues would occur on eastbound Palmer Avenue and westbound Calimesa Boulevard during the AM peak hour, and eastbound Palmer Avenue during the PM peak hour.
System -wide Performance: Under the No -Build Alternative, the travel time, average delay, and traffic volume of the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard overcrossing's existing transportation system were taken into account. Table
2.1.9-25, No -Build Alternative (Opening Year 2025) Performance Summary, shows that, higher levels of congestion occur during the PM peak hour in the study area, reflected by the increase in average delay per vehicle, 158.8 seconds during the PM peak hour compared to 117.5 seconds during the AM peak hour under the No -Build Alternative. Table 2.1.9-26, Travel Time — Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway, shows that the travel time for both cars and trucks increase during the PM peak hour under the No Build Alternative. Table 2.1.9-27, Travel Time — Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Opening Year 2025), reflects an increase travel time for both cars and trucks in the AM and PM peak hours under the No Build Alternative.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 165 342
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-24: No -Build Alternative Intersection Queue Summary (Opening Year 2025) Intersection/ Movement
Storage
Length
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / NBL 125
1350
890
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / SBL 175
150
630
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
1900
1.910
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBR 100
40 40
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / WBL 175
240
50 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBT
550
740
750
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBR
550
740
750
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBT
500
290
650
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBR
150
290
660
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBL 1150
490
3710
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBT 1150
490
3710
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBR 1150
460
3710
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 600
780
780
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR 600
770
770
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cher Valle Boulevard / WBL
575
380
630
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT 575
380
630
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL 575
670
530
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 550
670
530
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBT
225
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBR
225
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
175
280
190
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT
1000
1060
230
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR
200
1060
230
1-10 Eastbound Off/On- Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBL
175
180
480
1-10 Eastbound Off/On- Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBR
100
210
150
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / NBL
150
180
230
Notes: EB=eastbound; WB=westbound; NBR=northbound right; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; EBR=eastbound right; EBL=eastbound left; EBT=eastbound through; SBR=southbound right; SBL=southbound left; SBT=southbound through; WBR=westbound right; WBL=westbound left; WBT=westbound through
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 166 343
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-25: No -Build Alternative (Opening Year 2025) Performance Summary Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles Per Hour (mph)
36.6 35.2
Volume Served (vph)
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
10,783
10,781
Total Distance Traveled
Vehicle Miles Travelled [VMT] (miles)
37,221
37,161
Total Travel Time [VHT] (hours)
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
1,018.2
1,154.7
Average Delay Per Vehicle (seconds)
Seconds
117.5
158.8
Total Delay [VHD] (hours)
Vehicle Hours Delay (hours)
385
532
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-26: Travel Time — Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Opening Year 2025)
Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.0 4.3
Trucks
Minutes
4.5 7.2
All
Minutes
4.1 4.5
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-27: Travel Time — Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Opening Year 2025)
Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.8 4.4
Trucks
Minutes
6.1 5.6
All
Minutes
4.9 4.5
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Design Year (2045): For the No -Build Alternative, the Design Year 2045 AM and PM peak hour traffic forecasts for the eastbound and westbound 1-10 mainline segments/ramps are shown in Figure 2.1.9-6, Design Year (No - Build) 2045 Peak Hour Freeway Volumes and Figure 2.1.9-7, Design Year (No -Build) 2045 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 167 344
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-6: Design Year (No -Build) 2045 Peak Hour Freeway Volumes <oan;e-shr & F* -s. raLe;; para mn= tnays s Rep, Rsvembe. 2C?J '• NOT TO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATEIO/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Design Year (No -Build) 2045 Peak Hour Freeway Volumes
PI /021 JN169171
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 168 Figure 2.1.9-6
Item 9.
345
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-7: Design Year (No -Build Alternative) 2045 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes o©
LEGEND
Cahmesa
Seo Inset A
•
x11
Q
L ,
Inset A
0 0
0 Cal ire esa
0 -0 -
0 Study Intersection Beaumont
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Lane Configuration
sr —
Stop Sign
Signalized
inset B
See Inset B
41111.
A
300 040)
583 (550)
1. 1-10 EB Ramps/Singleton Rd 2.1-10 WB Ramps/Singleton Rd
7. Cherry Valley Blvd/Palmer Ave(0esen Lawn Dr 14A. Cherry Valley Blvd/New Roberts Rd 4B. Cherry Valley Blvd/Old Roberts Rd d
o
o
• 0�
O o
ipO(7
)4L
5.1-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd
770 (1,320)
10 (10)
_. 100 (40)
r 860 (680)
00 Cri
o oo
r Nip
)110,
• 170(100)
- 50 (20)
• 20(10)
Lbaerl Lunn Or
660 (960)x,
140(470)y
117
0 0 0
X00
N 0
71. 280(190),
110 (40) 4
50 (20)
III
N m LP
C,0 ((C�
0 660(960)-
20 (30) 0
20 (140)
20 (70)
X10(50)
20 (70)
)111.
E 0 0
0�0
(0 0
CO
rCO
6. 1-10 WB Ramps Cherry Valley Blvd
7, Calimesa Blvd/Cherry Valley Blvd
8A. 1-10 EB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
813 1-10 EB Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy
N CO
O
o 10 o
s "fa
✓ N N
1,170 (790)
370 (880)
.-1,140 (940)
V— 50 (60)
9B.1-10 WB Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy
840 (350)
590 (1,100)--'
480 (340)
370 (340)
t
613
m ot
N O
LO
0,1 N
m
9A.1-10 WB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
910 (550)
.1 1,200 (620)
Clik
1,480 (950)
790 (1,850)
790 (1,850)
430 (400)
✓
340 (50) _
500 (1,120)
170 (30)
810 (640)
840(1,300)
550 (260)
1,240 (820)
240 (130)
1,240 (820)
1,220 (2,250)
Source: Fehr a Peers. Traffic OperalionsAnalysi3 Report, November 2020
NCITO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Design Year (No -Build) 2045 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
01.2021 JN 169171
Figure 2.1.9-7
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 169 346
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 170 347
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As shown in Table 2.1.9-28, Design Year 2045 - Freeway Operations (No - Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour), eastbound 1-10 study segments would operate at an acceptable LOS B. As shown in Table 2.1.9-29, Design Year 2045 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour), the eastbound 1-10 study segments north of Singleton Road, Singleton Road on - ramp, Singleton Road on -ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp, and Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp operate at an unacceptable LOS D or F during the PM peak hour under Design Year 2045 conditions. As shown in Tables 2.1.9-30 and 2.1.9-31, the westbound 1-10 study segments south of Oak Valley Parkway, Oak Valley Parkway off -ramp (AM peak hour), Oak Valley Parkway off -ramp to Oak Valley Parkway on -ramp, Oak Valley Parkway on -ramp, Oak Valley Parkway on -ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp, Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp, Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to on -ramp (PM peak hour), Cherry Valley Boulevard on -ramp, Cherry Valley Boulevard on -ramp to Singleton Road off -ramp, Singleton Road off -ramp, north of Singleton Road (AM peak hour) would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour under Design Year 2045 conditions.
All other eastbound and westbound 1-10 segments would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under Design Year 2045 conditions.
As shown in Tables 2.1.9-32, Intersection Operations — Design Year 2045 Conditions (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour) and 2.1.9-33, Intersection Operations — Design Year 2045 Conditions (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour), multiple study intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS E or worse during the AM and PM peak hour under Design Year 2045 conditions: I-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Singleton Road (PM peak hour), 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Singleton Road, Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive, Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road, 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard, 1-10 westbound off/on- ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard, and 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Oak Valley Parkway (AM peak hour). All other study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS C conditions under the Design Year 2045 conditions for the No -Build Alternative.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 171 348
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-28: Design Year 2045 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
15.9 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.1 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
17.5 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
17.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
17.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
17.9 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
17.6 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
14.8 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
14.0 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
17.4 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-29: Design Year 2045 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
35.0 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
F
105.8
Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
F
48.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
120.0
Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
12.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
A
7.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
13.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
14.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
A
9.3 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
A
7.0 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
10.3 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 172 349
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-30: Design Year 2045 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
F
105.5
Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
121.0
Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
F
100.2
Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
F
108.5
Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
F
94.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
98.5 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
C
27.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
D
28.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
D
32.5 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
D
33.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
28.5 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-31: Design Year 2045 - Freeway Operations (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
F
49.9 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
25.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
F
71.4 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
F
87.8 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
F
56.5 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
96.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
D
29.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
D
29.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
D
34.5 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
D
34.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
26.5 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 173 350
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-32: Intersection Operations - Design Year 2045 Conditions (No -Build Alternative) (AM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Signal
C
29.3 2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Signal
E
60.8 3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
F
994.6
4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
F
264.8
4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
F
108.9
6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
F
100
7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street Stop/Signal
C
20.5 (SBL)
8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
15.4 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
E
56 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Design Year (2045) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-33: Intersection Operations - Design Year 2045 Conditions (No -Build Alternative) (PM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Signal
F
143.6
2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Signal
F
150.5
3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
F
171.4
4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
F
174.7
4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
F
103.8
6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
E
64.6 7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street Stop/Signal
C
21.1 (SBL)
8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
Signal
B
18.4 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
Signal
B
12 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Design Year (2045) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 174 351
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Queuing: Table 2.1.9-34, No -Build Alternatives Intersection Queue Summary (Design Year 2045), summarizes the average queue results under Design Year of 2045 conditions for the No -Build Alternative. The following turning movements would exceed storage capacity under the No -Build Scenario during AM and PM peak hour:
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
- Eastbound Through (PM Only)
Eastbound Right (PM Only)
- Westbound Left
• I-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
- Eastbound Left
• Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive - Northbound Left
- Southbound Left
- Eastbound Left
- Eastbound Right
- Westbound Left (AM Only)
- Westbound Through (AM Only)
- Westbound Right (AM Only)
• Cherry Valley Boulevard /Roberts Road
- Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
- Southbound Right
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 175 352
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures - Southbound Left (PM Only)
- Southbound Through (PM Only)
- Southbound Right (PM Only)
- Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
• I-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
- Eastbound Through
Eastbound Left
• Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
- Eastbound Left (AM Only)
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
- Southbound Left
- Eastbound Right
• I-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
- Northbound Left
As summarized in Table 2.1.9-34, under the Design Year of 2045 conditions, substantial queueing would occur on 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard with spillback onto the freeway mainline during the PM peak hour, and would occur on 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard with spillback onto the freeway mainline during both AM and PM peak hours. In addition, extended queues would occur on eastbound Palmer Avenue, westbound Desert Lawn Drive, and westbound Calimesa Boulevard during the AM peak hour, and eastbound Palmer Avenue during the PM peak hour.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 176 353
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-34: No -Build Alternatives Intersection Queue Summary (Design Year 2045)
Intersection
Storage
Length
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBT
525
450
590
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBR
525
450
590
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / WBL
525
610
670
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBL
600
640
660
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / NBL 125
980
830
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / SBL 175
480
400
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
1,920
1,850
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBR 100
240
470
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / WBL 175
270
50 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / WBT 1,980
1,970
130
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / WBR 1,970
1,970
200
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBL
175
540
340
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBT
550
730
740
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBR
550
730
740
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBT
500
410
260
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBR
150
440
290
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBL
1,150
720
5,070
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBT
1,150
720
5,070
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBR
1,150
710
5,070
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
600
790
790
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR
600
780
780
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBL
375/5754
380
560
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT
375/5754
380
560
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBL
1,050
5,080
5,070
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBT
1,050
5,080
5,070
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBR
1,050
5,080
5,070
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
550
690
560
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
550
690
560
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ NBT
225
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ NBL
225
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ SBL
225
100
230
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ EBL
175
260
70 1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBL
175
260
770
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBT
1,175
140
270
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway /SBR
1,175
140
270
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBR
100
370
260
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway/ NBL
150
240
400
Notes: EB=eastbound; WB=westbound; NBR=northbound right; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; EBR=eastbound right; EBL=eastbound left; EBT=eastbound through; SBR=southbound right; SBL=southbound left; SBT=southbound through; WBR=westbound right; WBL=westbound left; WBT=westbound through
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements.
2. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
3. In Alternative 4, Partial Cloverleaf Interchange the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard is realigned with the 1-10 westbound off -ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard.
4. The storage length is listed in the following order: Diverging Diamond Storage/Partial Cloverleaf Storage (XXX'/X)0').
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 177 354
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures System -wide Performance: Under the No -Build Alternative, the travel time, average delay, and traffic volume of the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard overcrossing's existing transportation system were taken into account for Design Year 2045 conditions. Table 2.1.9-35, No -Build Alternative (Design Year 2045) Performance Summary, shows slightly higher levels of congestion occur during the PM peak hour in the study area, reflected by the increase in average delay per vehicle, 366.4 seconds during the PM peak hour compared to 352.9 seconds during the AM peak hour under the No -Build Alternative.
Table 2.1.9-36, Travel Time Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (No Build Alternative), shows increases in travel times in travel times during the AM peak hours compared to the 2025 Opening Year, with 4.1 minutes for cars and 4.8 minutes for trucks. Table 2.1.9-37, Travel Time Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (No Build Alternative) (Design Year 2045), shows an increase in travel times that ranges from 8.7 to 19.2 minutes in travel time for AM and PM peak hours, when compared to the 2025 Opening Year.
Table 2.1.9-35: No -Build Alternative (Design Year 2045) Performance Summary Item 9.
Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles per Hour (mph)
18.4 17.4
Volume Served
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
14,962
14,435
Total Distance Traveled
Miles
46,219
43,200
Total Travel Time
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
2,507.0
2,496.0
Average Delay Per Vehicle
Seconds
352.9
366.4
Total Delay
Vehicle Hours Delay (hours)
1,714
1,750
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-36: Travel Time Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (No Build Alternative) (Design Year 2045) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.1 4.1
Trucks
Minutes
4.8 4.7
All
Minutes
4.2 4.2
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-37: Travel Time Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (No Build Alternative) (Design Year 2045) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
12.6 10.5
Trucks
Minutes
19.2 8.7
All
Minutes
13.2 10.5
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 178 355
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Opening Year (2025): Figures 2.1.9-8 through 2.1.9-11 and Tables 2.1.9-38 through 2.1.9-45 show Opening Year 2025 LOS and density under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 for study area roadway and freeway segments and intersections.
As shown in Tables 2.1.9-38 through 2.1.9-45, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 perform similarly based on LOS and volume densities on freeways and would improve freeway operations within the project area during opening Year 2025 conditions with the exception of the westbound 1-10 segment north of Singleton, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour under Build Alternatives 3 and 4. During the PM peak hour, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would improve the eastbound 1-10 segment at Cherry Valley off -ramp from an unacceptable LOS F in the No -Build condition to an acceptable LOS B. During the AM peak hour, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would improve westbound 1-10 segments at Cherry Valley on -ramp to Singleton off -ramp and the Singleton off -ramp from an unacceptable LOS D in the No -Build condition to an acceptable LOS C or better.
Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-38: Opening Year 2025 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (AM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
13.6 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.7 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
12.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
9.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
A
11.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
12.2 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
11.5 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
10.4 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.3 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
12.4 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes — indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 179 356
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-8: Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 3 Singleton Road
0'', vie
l
A510 R790) 4.480 0,750
Cherry Valley Boulevard
3,090 (4,270) 3,170 (4,200)
eo
YO
Oak Valley Parkwc,.
4,080 (3,530) 3,700 (3490)
2,960(3,460)
Futur•OA Wiry wLe. On.11ern.0
3,210{3,1911
Source Fehr & Peers, Traffic Operations Analysis Report, No4mher2020
QNOTTOSCALE
o1,2c21 Al 169171
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 3 Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 180 Figure 2.1.9-8
Item 9.
357
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-9: Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 4 Scum: Fehr &Peers, Traffic Cperalions Analysis Report, November 2020
QNOT TO SCALE
012021 JN 10171
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 4 Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 181 Figure 2.1.9-9
Item 9.
358
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 182 Item 9.
359
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-10: Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 3 See Iresa+t A.
fit
0 LEGEND
0 Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
•
0 Lane Configuration
Stop Sign
Signalized
Inset
171
II7}
BeaunAp.
See Inset B
4. A
1-1-10 EB Rampslsingleten Rd
70 (40)
190 (150)
190 (310)
10 (10)—&'"
2. 1-10 W8 RampsRingleton Rd
30 (10)
250 (180)
leiur
150 (230)
50 (110)
6 3. Cherry Valley Blvd/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Or
oo—
C2 It 71
J11LL
„ 170 (100)
.— 50 (20)
r 20 (10)
260 (196)„
110 (40) —
50 (20) '
ITT'
O O O
4A. Cherry Valley BNd/New Roberts Ad
10 (50)
r 5(40)
13 (50)
103 (300)_.*
10 (20) --1(
10 (50)
1111'
9 , O
48. Cherry Valley Blvdl013 Roberts Rd
.1-10 E9 RampsICherry Valley Blvd B. 1-10 WB Ramps Cherry Valley Blvd 7. Calimesa Blvd/Cherry Valley Blvd BA. 1-19 EB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy BB. 1-10 EB Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy 390(390)
-g- 50 (40)
380 (230)
4— 180 (160)
510 (300)
400 (625) —.
11r
6-10
(P"
9A. I-10 WB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy 90.1-10 WB Loop On-Ramp(Dak Valley Pkwy 610 (300)
580(330)
4— 770 (560)
470 (760)
100 (135) =
10 (0) 6„,
340 (40) —
280 (620) —
170 (30)
530 (350)
580 (440)
570 (910)
190 (120)
580 (440)
Source'. Fehr & Peers, Traffic Operations Analysis Report, N0308t'er 2020
QNOT TO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATEIO/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 3 014071 JP 168171
Figure 2.1.9-10
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 183 360
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 184 361
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-11: Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 4 See Inset A•
•
fT1
0 LEGEND
0 Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Lane Configuration
O Stop Sign
ti Signalized
Inset IS
Beaumont
Y
feD
Beaumont
See Inset B
A
1.1-10 EB Ramps(Singleton Rd
Sul
70 (40)
190 (150)
5. I-10 EB RampefCherry Vatley BNd
390 (309)
r 50(40)
9A. 1-00(59 Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
.'-it 510 (380)
560 (330)
2,1-10 WE RampCSingleton Rd
5 30 (10)
V— 250 (180)
150 (230)
50 (110)'
6.1-10 W B On-liamp1Cher7 Yalley 911,9
380 (230)
4— 440 (430)
010 (920) y
99 1-117 WB Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley pkwy
770 (560)
470 (780) .-:
100 (130)
3. Cherry Valley BNdiF0rner Ave/I:esen Lawn Dr
E
6 �`...j2
170 (100)
50 (20)
20 (10)
280 (190) ..al
110 (40) —•
50 (20)
� O �
7. Calimesa Blyd/1-10 WB Rampe10 henry Valley Blvd
1_ 170 (30)
539 (350)
o 4L
220 (40) 1
180 (590) y
510 (300) 0 1
000
N N....
p r 4
4A. Cherry Valley BNd/New Roberts Rd
160 (300)
10 (20) —0
10 (50) —li•
BA, 1-10 EB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
4B. Cherry Valley Blvd/Old Roberts RC
89,1-10 EB Lapp CM-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy
190 (120)
580 (440)
570 (910) EE
Source Fehr & Peas Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020
QMOTTO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 4 011P021 JN 169171
Figure 2.1.9-11
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 185 362
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 186 363
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-39: Opening Year 2025 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (PM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
15.5 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.0 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
17.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
13.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
14.6 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
15.5 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
11.1 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
A
8.9 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
12.1 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-40: Opening Year 2025 Westbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (AM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
21.3 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
21.5 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
B
18.0 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
C
20.9 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
27.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
18.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
C
24.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
--
Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
C
22.8 North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
29.9 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 187 364
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-41: Opening Year 2025 Westbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (PM Peak Hour)
Item 9.
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
20.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
20.3 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
B
16.3 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.5 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
22.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
C
20.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
--
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
--
--
Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
--
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
22.0 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-42: Opening Year 2025 Eastbound Segment Build Alternatives 4 (AM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
10.7 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.5 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
12.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
A
9.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
11.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
12.2 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
11.8 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
10.3 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
10.4 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
12.3 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 188 365
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-43: Opening Year 2025 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 4 (PM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
15.0 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
16.8 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
17.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
14.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
13.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
14.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
15.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
11.0 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
A
9.0 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
12.1 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-44: Opening Year 2025 Westbound Segment Build Alternatives 4 (AM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
21.3 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
21.6 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
B
18.0 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
C
20.8 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
27.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
17.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
C
21.95 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
16.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
C
26.0 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
24.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
33.4 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 189 366
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-45: Opening Year 2025 Westbound Segment Build Alternatives 4 (PM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
19.6 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
20.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
B
16.0 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.0 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
21.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
13.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
18.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
11.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
B
18.7 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
18.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
23.6 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes — indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 perform similarly, with all intersections operating acceptably, based on LOS and the delay at all the study intersections. As shown in Tables 2.1.9-46 through 2.1.9-50, and Figures 2.1.9-10 and 2.1.9- 11, all study intersections that operated at an unacceptable LOS D or worse during the AM and PM peak hours under the No -Build Alternative scenario would improve to operate at LOS C or better under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 190 367
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-46: Intersection Operations - Opening Year 2025 Conditions Build Alternative 3 (AM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Dela
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
10.3 (SBL)
2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
A
9.0 (NBL)
3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
C
27.7 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
B
13.5 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
C
22.0 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
A
7.1 7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/Signal
C
22.0 8. I -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Signal
B
11.1 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
A
8.6 Notes: SBL=southbound left; NBL=northbound left
1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Opening Year (2025) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-47: Intersection Operations - Opening Year 2025 Conditions Build Alternatives 3 (PM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
11.4 (SBL)
2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
14.4 (NBL)
3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
C
22.1 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
B
13.5 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5.1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
B
14.7 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
A
5.7 7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Sto /Si nal
A
9.5 8. I -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
17.4 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
14.7 Notes: SBL=southbound left; NBL=northbound left
1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 191 368
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Opening Year (2025) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-48: Intersection Operations - Opening Year 2025 Conditions Build Alternative 4 (AM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1.1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
10.7 (SBL)
2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
10.2 (NBL)
3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
C
25.8 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
B
12.3 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
B
11.4 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
--
--
7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/ Signal
C
20.6 8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Signal
B
11.6 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
A
8.9 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Opening Year (2025) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 192 369
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-49: Intersection Operations — Opening Year 2025 Conditions Build Alternatives 4 (PM Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
11.2 (SBL)
2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
B
11.3 (NBR)
3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
C
20.8 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
B
19.0 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
B
15.2 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
--
--
7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/ Signal
B
15.2 8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Signal
B
17.0 9.1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
11.1 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Opening Year (2025) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under the Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Queueing: As shown in Tables 2.1.9-50 and 2.1.9-51, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would eliminate the queues at the 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection, and substantially reduce queueing at other ramp terminal and intersection locations as compared to the No -Build Alternative. In addition, the eastbound right turning movement at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive under the Build Alternatives would have much longer queue lengths than the No -Build Alternative. The only movements where the queues would exceed the storage lengths under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are listed below, with much shorter queues compared to the No -Build Alternative.
• Northbound left at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive (AM Only)
• Southbound left at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive (PM Only)
• Eastbound left at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive
• Eastbound right at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 193 370
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Southbound right at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road (PM Only) • Northbound through at Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only)
• Northbound right at Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only) • Eastbound left at Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only) • Southbound left at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway • Eastbound right at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway • Northbound left at 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Table 2.1.9-50: Build Alternative 3 Intersection Queue Summary (Opening Year 2025)
Item 9.
Intersection/ Movement
Storage
Length
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / NBL 125
160
90 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / SBL 175
110
160
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
600
420
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBR 100
190
90 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / WBL 175
100
60 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBT
550
160
170
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBR
550
170
170
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBT
625
150
200
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBR
625
180
230
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard/ SBL 990
160
290
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBT 950
490
3,710
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBR 950
460
3,710
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 575
780
780
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR 525
770
770
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBL 375
380
630
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT 375
380
630
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL 425
670
530
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 425
670
530
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBT
1050
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBR
310
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
850
520
110
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard/ WBT
1000
1060
230
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR
1000
1060
230
1-10 Eastbound Off/On- Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBL
175
180
480
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBL
100
210
150
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / NBL
150
180
230
Notes: EB=eastbound; WB=westbound; NBR=northbound right; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; EBR=eastbound right; EBL=eastbound left; EBT=eastbound through; SBR=southbound right; SBL=southbound left; SBT=southbound through; WBR=westbound right; WBL=westbound left; WBT=westbound through
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 194 371
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-51: Build Alternative 4 Intersection Queue Summary (Opening Year 2025)
Intersection/ Movement
Storage
Length
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / NBL 125
130
90 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / SBL 175
100
30 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
550
100
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / EBR 100
160
400
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive / WBL 175
80 60
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NB Through
550
190
180
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBR
550
220
210
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBT
600
140
240
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBR
600
190
290
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBL 1150
140
250
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBT 1150
140
250
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBR 1150
100
160
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT 600
380
250
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR 600
30 80
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBL 575
140
120
1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT 575
110
100
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL 175
310
100
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EB T 1000
120
240
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBT
1050
310
200
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBR
310
310
90 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
250
280
100
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT
1000
320
190
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR
200
120
50 1-10 Eastbound Off/On- Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBL 175
170
410
1-10 Eastbound Off/On- Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBR
100
190
130
1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / NBL
150
180
250
Notes: EB=eastbound; WB=westbound; NBR=northbound right; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; EBR=eastbound right; EBL=eastbound left; EBT=eastbound through; SBR=southbound right; SBL=southbound left; SBT=southbound through; WBR=westbound right; WBL=westbound left; WBT=westbound through
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
System -wide Performance: Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, the travel time, average delay, and the traffic volumes of the overcrossing's existing transportation system were taken into account for Opening Year 2025 conditions. Tables 2.1.9-52 and 2.1.9-55 show an overall reduced delay under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 compared to the No -Build Alternative under Opening Year 2025 conditions. Tables 2.1.9-53 and 2.1.9-54 shows the estimated time travel time on 1-10, between the Singleton Road and Oak Valley Parkway overcrossings, for Build Alternative 3 during the 2025 Opening Year. Tables 2.1.9-56 and 2.1.9-57 shows the estimated time travel time on 1-10, between the Singleton Road and Oak Valley Parkway overcrossings, for Build Alternative 4 during the 2025 Opening Year.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 195 372
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-52: Build Alternative 3 (Opening Year 2025) Item 9.
Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles per Hour (mph)
48.0 50.5
Volume Served (vph)
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
11,283
11,239
Total Distance Traveled
Miles
38,371
38,474
Total Travel Time [VHT] (hours)
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
799.1
761.6
Average Delay Per Vehicle (seconds)
Seconds
42.0 33.9
Total Delay [VHD] (hours)
Vehicle Hours Delay (hours)
141
123
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-53: Travel Time Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Build Alternative 3) (Opening Year 2025) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.0 4.1
Trucks
Minutes
4.5 4.6
All
Minutes
4.1 4.1
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-54: Travel Time Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Build Alternative 3) (Opening Year 2025) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.8 4.4
Trucks
Minutes
6.1 5.5
All
Minutes
4.9 4.5
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-55: Build Alternative 4 (Opening Year 2025) Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles per Hour
47.9 49.9
Volume Served (vph)
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
11,272
11,255
Total Distance Traveled
Miles
38,530
38,599
Total Travel Time [VHT] (hours)
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
805.0
772.9
Average Delay Per Vehicle (seconds)
Seconds
39.5 36.1
Total Delay [VHD] (hours)
Vehicle Hours Delay (hours)
132
121
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 196 373
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-56: Travel Time Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Build Alternative 4) (Opening Year 2025) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.0 4.1
Trucks
Minutes
4.5 4.6
All
Minutes
4.1 4.1
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-57: Travel Time Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Build Alternative 4) (Opening Year 2025) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.8 4.4
Trucks
Minutes
6.2 5.6
All
Minutes
4.9 4.5
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Design Year (2045): Figures 2.1.9-12 and 2.1.9-13 and Tables 2.1.9-58 through 2.1.9-65 show the future Design Year 2045 LOS and density under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 for study freeway segments and intersections. As shown in Tables 2.1.9-58 through 2.1.9-59 and 2.1.9-63 through 2.1.9-64, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would improve eastbound 1-10 freeway operations to an acceptable LOS C or better at the study segments as compared to the No -Build Alternative, with the exception of eastbound 1-10 segment north of Singleton, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour for Build Alternative 3, similar to the No -Build Alternative; this 1-10 segment would improve to an acceptable LOS C in the PM peak hour for Build Alternative 4. Additionally, the eastbound 1-10 segment at Oak Valley Parkway off -ramp would worsen to an unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour for Build Alternatives 3 and 4, compared to the No -Build Alternative, which would operate at an acceptable LOS B in the PM peak hour.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 197 374
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-12: Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 3 F ,11 a Paa , Trnlfi,: CCen innn 4a,dyms R
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10(CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 3 Figure 2.1.9-12
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 198 Item 9.
375
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-13: Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 4 Source Fehr&Peers, Traffic Operations Analysis Report, r4OLeniher 2920
QNOT TO SCALE
01.2621 21 169171
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I NTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Freeway Volumes Build Alternative 4 Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 199 Figure 2.1.9-13
Item 9.
376
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As shown on Tables 2.1.9-60 through 2.1.9-61 and 2.1.9-64 through 2.1.9-65, the majority of the eastbound and westbound 1-10 segments under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 improve operations to an acceptable LOS C or better. The westbound 1-10 segments at Oak Valley Parkway on -ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp and Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp (AM peak hour for Build Alternative 3 only) would operate at an unacceptable LOS E or worse under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, similar to the No -Build Alternative. The westbound 1-10 segment at Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to on -ramp would deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS E in the AM peak hour for Build Alternative 3 only. The westbound 1-10 segments at Cherry Valley Boulevard on -ramp to Singleton Road off -ramp (basic facility type) and Singleton Road off -ramp would deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour for Build Alternative 4 only (these segments do not exist under Build Alternative 3).
The westbound 1-10 segment north of Singleton Road would deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour for Build Alternatives 3 and 4. The westbound 1-10 segment at Cherry Valley Boulevard on -ramp to Singleton Road off -ramp (weave facility type) would deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour for Build Alternative 3 only (this segment does not exist under the No -Build and Build Alternative 3). This is due to an anticipated queue spillback from the Singleton Road Off -Ramp diverge segment that would occur outside of project impacts. Additionally, as discussed in the TOAR, planned development is expected to occur within the City and project area, that would result in additional background population growth.
This growth would cause excessive traffic and additional queuing within the project area, and result in eastbound and the westbound segments mentioned above to operate at a deficient LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour.
Table 2.1.9-58: Design Year 2045 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (AM Peak Hour)
Item 9.
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
16.3 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.3 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
18.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
14.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
16.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
15.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
19.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
17.7 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
15.4 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
14.2 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
18.0 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes — indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 200 377
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-59: Design Year 2045 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (PM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
29.7 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
C
25.6 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
25.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
19.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
18.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off- Ramp
Basic
C
22.3 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
E
44.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
15.8 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
A
9.7 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
15.8 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Loop On - Ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-60: Design Year 2045 Westbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (AM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
D
28.9 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
27.9 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
C
24.3 Oak Valle Parkwa On -Ram
Mere
C
21.7 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
E
40.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
48.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
E
36.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
--
Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
F
44.6 North of Singleton Road
Basic
F
72.9 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 201 378
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-61: Design Year 2045 Westbound Segment Build Alternative 3 (PM Peak Hour)
Item 9.
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
27.5 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
27.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
C
22.4 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
C
27.5 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
E
36.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
25.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
D
30.8 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
--
Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
--
Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
C
26.0 North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
30.5 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-62: Design Year 2045 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 4 (AM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
B
15.4 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.3 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
B
18.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
12.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
16.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
14.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
B
18.9 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
17.8 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
15.4 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
B
14.4 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
18.0 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 202 379
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-63: Design Year 2045 Eastbound Segment Build Alternative 4 (PM Peak Hour)
Eastbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
North of Singleton Road
Basic
C
26.0 Singleton Road On -Ramp
Merge
C
25.9 Singleton Road On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
C
25.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
B
19.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
18.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
17.2 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp Basic
C
22.0 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
E
40.6 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
B
15.6 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
A
9.9 South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
B
15.8 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-64: Design Year 2045 Westbound Segment Build Alternative 4 (AM Peak Hour)
Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
D
29.1 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
27.8 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
C
24.0 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
C
22.6 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
F
47.9 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
D
32.3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
D
34.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
30.4 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
F
63.8 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
F
66.0 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
F
81.8 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes - indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard off -ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard loop on -ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 203 380
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Table 2.1.9-65: Design Year 2045 Westbound Segment Build Alternative 4 (PM Peak Hour) Westbound 1-10 Segment
Facility Type
LOS
Density
South of Oak Valley Parkway
Basic
C
27.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
27.4 Oak Valley Parkway Off -Ramp to Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp Basic
C
22.3 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp
Merge
C
27.5 Oak Valley Parkway On -Ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp Basic
E
35.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
23.7 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to On -Ramp
Basic
C
24.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp
Merge
B
19.6 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Basic
C
29.2 Singleton Road Off -Ramp
Diverge
C
27.1 Cherry Valley Boulevard On -Ramp to Singleton Road Off -Ramp Weave
--
North of Singleton Road
Basic
D
32.0 Notes: 1. The LOS and density (in vehicles per lane per mile) are reported.
2. Bold font indicates LOS D conditions, bold and underline font indicate LOS E or F conditions.
3. A lane add occurs at the on -ramp, so the segment is analyzed as a Basic segment.
4. Two dashes — indicate that the segment does not exist under that alternative.
5. A loop on -ramp from Cherry Valley Boulevard was added in Alternative 4. This segment is from the westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Off -Ramp to westbound 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Loop On -Ramp.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Figures 2.1.9-14 and 2.1.9-15 and Tables 2.1.9-66 through 2.1.9-69 show the LOS and delay of the study intersections under the Build Alternatives 3 and 4 Design Year (2045) conditions.
Tables 2.1.9-66 through 2.1.9-69 show that, with the exception of the 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road intersection, intersection operations would improve with implementation of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 compared to intersection conditions under the No -Build Alternative. 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Singleton Road (PM peak Hour), 1-10 westbound off/on ramps/Singleton Road, and Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road (PM peak hour) would operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse.
According to the TOAR, the intersections that are operating at a deficient LOS under Build Alternative 3 are not a result of project implementation. All other intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 204 381
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-14: Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 3 See Inset A
m
0 LEGEND
4 Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
✓ ▪ - Lane Configuration
• Stop Sign
• Signalized
Inset
Beaumont
See Inset B
A
1 1-10 E8 Ramps/Singleton Rd
300 (140)
580 (550)
5.1.1O EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd
1,140 (940)
- 50 (60)
1,170 (790)
375(885)
HA. I-10 W B Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
r� 910 (550)
4— 1.200 (620)
2. 1-10 WB Ramps/Singleton Rd
100 (40)
4-- 860 (680)
11.r
aEa
O �
N v
B.1-10 W13 Rampa1Cherry Valley Blvd
460 (345)
4— 370 (340)
go
an
BB_ 1-10 WE( Loap On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy
1,480(950)
790 (1,850)
432 (400)
20 (5)
340 (50) o
500 (1,120)
3. Cherry Valley Blvd/Palmer AvelDosed Lawn ❑r
170 (100)
4— 50 (20)
r-20(10)
280 (190),
1141401 —•
5 2o-
O O O
NSWy)
5 m
7. Cakmesa Blvd/Cherry Valley Blvd
170 (30)
810 (640)
4A. Cherry Valley Blvd/New Roberts Rd
E -
mr00
new NVIin
880 (960)
20 (30) —4
20 (140)
25 (70)
r 10 (50)
20 (70)
O
(�VO
5 8A. !-TO EB Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
843 (1,300)
550 (260)"
A— 1,240 (820)
1,220 (2,250)
46. Cherry Valley 61041014 Rabe rts Rd
8.6.1-101 59 Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy
r 240 (130)
1,240 (020)
Source: Fehr & Peers, Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020
QNOT TO SCALE
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 3
61.7a21 11151171
Figure 2.1.9-14
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 205 382
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 206 383
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.9-15: Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 4 00 LEGEND
Cal,mt.a
0 Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Ik_
E— Lane Configuration
•
Stop Sign
Signalized
Inset A
1.31101293
0 0 A-__
5eaum^_r+.
Inset
1 See Inset B
4011.11
A
1.1-15 EB Ramps/Singleton Rd
2 1-10 WE Ramps/Singleton Rd
3. Cherry Valley Blvd/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Or
4A Cherry Valley Blvd/New Roberts Rd
4E. Cherry Valley 13188101d Roberts Rd
5. 1-10 0E Ram 00Charry Valley 01,70
8.1-10 W Eon-Ramp/Chany Valley Elvd
7. Cellmesaelvdll-IO WE Rampe/Ch.rry VSEy 0Rd
8A. 1-1000 Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
80.1-10 EE Rampa2Oak Valley Pkwy
R._ 100 (40)
.11— 860(680)
660 (960) it
140 (470)
280 (190) �a
110 (40)
50 (20)
170 (100)
4— 50 (20)
20 (10)
660 (060) _A
20 (30) —
20 (140)
20 (70)
10 (50)
20 (70)
1140 (940}
50 (60)
1,170(790)
370 (880) —'
96. 1-15 358 Loop On-Ramp/Oak Valley Pkwy
M.1-10 WE Ramps/Oak Valley Pkwy
410 (550)
1,200 (820)
240 (50) ..
350 (1,050)
840 (350)
le-- 170 (30)
610 (640)
aelk
4— 1,240 (820)
540 (1,300) =y
550(260).
1,220(2,250)
240 (130)
1,240 (820)
50urce' Fehr & Peers, Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020
QNOT TO SCALE
71,2021 91 169111
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 110/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERGHANGE PROJECT Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Build Alternative 4 Figure 2.1.9-15
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 207 384
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 208 385
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-66: Intersection Operations - Design Year 2045 Conditions Build Alternative 3 (AM Peak Hour)
Item 9.
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
C
29.1 2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
E
71.2 3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
C
25.9 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
C
26.1 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
C
24.3 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
B
11.3 7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street Stop/Signal
C
22.1 8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Signal
B
14.3 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
10.8 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 4B is closed under Design Year (2045) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-67: Intersection Operations - Design Year 2045 Conditions Build Alternative 3 (PM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
E
57.2 2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
D
53.8 3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
B
18.2 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
E
63.8 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
B
16.9 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
A
8.9 7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/Signal
A
9.3 8. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
C
31.2 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
12.7 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 209 386
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Design Year (2045) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-68: Intersection Operations - Design Year 2045 Conditions Build Alternative 4 (AM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
C
29.1 2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
E
69.0 3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
C
23.8 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
C
23.4 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
--
5. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
B
10.4 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
--
--
7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street Stop/
Signal
C
25.5 8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Signal
B
14.5 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
11 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Design Year (2045) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 210 387
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-69: Intersection Operations — Design Year 2045 Conditions Build Alternative 4 (PM Hour)
Item 9.
Intersection
Control
LOS
Delay
1. 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
E
56.1 2. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road
Side Street Stop
E
57.0 3. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive Signal
B
17.2 4A. Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road
Signal
E
66.5 4B. Old Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard
--
--
5.1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Signal
B
19.7 6. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Signal
--
--
7. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard
Side Street
Stop/Signal
C
25.5 8. 1 -10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Signal
C
32.4 9. 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway
Signal
B
13.0 Notes: 1. For signal, all -way -stop, and roundabout control, the overall intersection LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) are reported.
2. For side -street stop -control, the worst movement LOS and delay are reported with the worst movement listed in parentheses.
3. Bold and underline font indicate LOS D (for City of Calimesa intersections), E or F conditions (for Caltrans intersections).
4. Intersection 48 is closed under Design Year (2045) Conditions.
5. Intersections 5 and 6 are signalized under No -Build and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios.
6. Intersection 6 becomes an uncontrolled on -ramp, and the off -ramp and loop on -ramp are aligned with Intersection 7 under Build Alternative 4.
7. Intersection 7 is side -street stop -controlled under the No -Build scenario, and is signalized under all other scenarios.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Queuing: As shown in Tables 2.1.9-70 through 2.1.9-71, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would eliminate queues at 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard and the 1-10 westbound off/on-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersections. In addition, the queues at the southbound approach at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road and the southbound approach at 1-10 eastbound off/on-ramps/Oak Valley Parkway under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would have longer queue lengths than the No -Build Alternative. The only movements where the queues would exceed the storage lengths under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are listed below, with much shorter queues compared to the No -Build Alternative.
• Eastbound through at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road (PM Only)
• Eastbound right at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road (PM Only) • Westbound left at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road • Eastbound left at 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 211 388
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Northbound left at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive (AM Only)
• Eastbound left at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive
• Eastbound right at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn Drive (AM Only Diverging Diamond and Partial Cloverleaf) • Northbound Left at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road (AM Only, Partial Cloverleaf)
• Southbound through at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road (PM Only, Diverging Diamond)
• Southbound right at Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road (PM Only, Diverging Diamond)
• Eastbound through at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Partial Cloverleaf)
• Westbound left at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only, Diverging Diamond)
• Westbound through at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only, Diverging Diamond)
• Southbound left at 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (PM Only, Partial Cloverleaf) • Eastbound left at 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only, Partial Cloverleaf) • Northbound through at Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only)
• Northbound right at Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only) • Eastbound left at Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Only) • Southbound left at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway • Southbound through at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway (PM Only)
• Southbound right at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway (PM Only)
• Eastbound right at 1-10 Eastbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway • Northbound left at 1-10 Westbound Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 212 389
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-70: Design Year (2045) Intersection Queue Summary - Build Alternative 3
Item 9.
Intersection/ Movement
Storage
Length
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBL
525
420
580
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBR
525
480
640
1-10 EB Off/On-Ram s/Sin leton Road / WBL
525
670
670
1-10 WB Off/On- Ramps/Singleton Road / EBL
600
610
690
Cher Valle Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / NBL 125
150
100
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / SBL 175
110
150
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
590
420
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / EBR 100
180
90 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / WBL 175
100
50 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / WBT 550
160
100
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / WBR 550
40 10
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBL
125
220
110
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBT
550
290
280
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBR
550
290
280
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBT
625
510
680
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBR
625
540
710
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBL
1,150
170
500
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBT
1,150
--
--
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBR
1,150
130
510
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
575
450
260
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR
525
10 30
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBL
375
420
270
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT
375
460
310
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBL
1,050
310
190
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBT
1,050
--
--
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBR
1,050
200
60 I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
175
50 10
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
1000
220
390
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ NBT
1,050
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ NBL
310
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ SBL
1000
-
-
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3/ EBL
850
580
140
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBL
175
290
3,570
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBT
1,175
190
2,310
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBR
1,175
190
2,340
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBR
100
340
250
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / NBL
150
250
390
Notes: EB=eastbound; WB=westbound; NBR=northbound right; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; EBR=eastbound right; EBL=eastbound left; EBT=eastbound through; SBR=southbound right; SBL=southbound left; SBT=southbound through; WBR=westbound right; WBL=westbound left; WBT=westbound through
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements.
2. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 213 390
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-71: Design Year (2045) Intersection Queue Summary - Build Alternative 4
Item 9.
Intersection / Movement
Storage
Length
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBL
525
450
590
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBR
525
500
640
1-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / WBL
525
650
670
1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road / EBL
600
630
700
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / NBL 125
130
90 Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / SBL 175
100
160
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / EBL 125
530
410
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / EBR 100
160
100
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / WBL 175
80 60
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / WBT 1,980
150
100
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn Drive / WBR 1,970
30 10
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBL
175
250
120
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBT
550
390
360
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / NBR
550
420
390
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBT
600
350
510
Cherry Valley Boulevard/Roberts Road / SBR
600
400
560
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBL
1,150
180
375
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBT
1,150
180
270
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / SBR
1,150
100
730
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
600
610
270
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBR
600
80 160
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBL
575
220
230
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / WBT
575
--
--
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBL
1,050
--
--
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBT
1,050
--
--
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / NBR
1,050
--
--
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBL
175
--
--
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard / EBT
1000
--
--
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3 / NBT
1050
310
100
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3 / NBL
310
310
110
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3 / SBL
1000
90 250
Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard3 / EBL
250
360
130
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBL
175
290
3,300
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBT
1,175
170
2,530
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / SBR
1,175
170
2,530
I-10 EB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / EBR
100
360
300
I-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Oak Valley Parkway / NBL
150
270
380
Notes: EB=eastbound; WB=westbound; NBR=northbound right; NBL=northbound left; NBT=northbound through; EBR=eastbound right; EBL=eastbound left; EBT=eastbound through; SBR=southbound right; SBL=southbound left; SBT=southbound through; WBR=westbound right; WBL=westbound left; WBT=westbound through
1. The storage and average maximum queue length (in feet) is reported for key movements.
2. Bold and underline font indicate a queue that exceeds the storage.
3. In Alternative 4, Partial Cloverleaf Interchange the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard is realigned with the 1-10 westbound off -ramp to Cherry Valley Boulevard.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 214 391
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures System -wide Performance: For Build Alternatives 3 and 4, the travel time, average delay, and the traffic volumes of the overcrossing's existing transportation system were taken into account for the Design Year 2045 conditions. Table 2.1.9-72 and 2.1.9-75 show reduced delay under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 compared the No -Build Alternative. Tables 2.1.9-73 and
2.1.9-74 show reduced travel time for cars and trucks under Build Alternative
3. Tables 2.1.9-76 and 2.1.9-77 show reduced travels time for cars and trucks under Build Alternative 4.
Table 2.1.9-72: Build Alternative 3 (Design Year 2045) Performance Summary
Item 9.
Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles per Hour
39.4 39.1
Volume Served
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
17,811
18,680
Total Distance Traveled
Miles
55,789
56,409
Total Travel Time
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
1,416.3
1,442.6
Average Delay Per Vehicle
Seconds
83.2 84.2
Total Delay
Vehicle Hours Delay (hours)
444
470
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-73: Travel Time Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Build Alternative 3) (Design Year 2045) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.1 4.3
Trucks
Minutes
4.8 5.8
All
Minutes
4.2 5.1
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-74: Travel Time Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway Build Alternative 3) (Design Year 2045)
Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
8.7 6.6
Trucks
Minutes
10.5 7.7
All
Minutes
8.9 6.6
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 215 392
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.9-75: Build Alternative 4 (Design Year 2045) Performance Summary
Item 9.
Performance Measure
Metric
AM
PM
Average Speed
Miles per Hour
38.9 39.0
Volume Served
Vehicles per Hour (vph)
17,831
18,628
Total Distance Traveled
Miles
56,327
56,523
Total Travel Time
Vehicle Hours Travelled (hours)
1,448.1
1,449.4
Average Delay Per Vehicle
Seconds
83.6 84.0
Total Delay
Vehicle Hours Delay (hours)
448
468
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-76: Travel Time Eastbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway (Build Alternative 4) (Design Year 2045) Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
4.1 4.2
Trucks
Minutes
4.7 5.5
All
Minutes
4.2 4.3
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Table 2.1.9-77 Travel Time — Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley Parkway Build Alternative 4) (Design Year 2045)
Performance Measure
Metric
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Cars
Minutes
6.9 5.1
Trucks
Minutes
8.1 6.1
All
Minutes
7.0 5.2
Source: Fehr & Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (November 2020).
Study Conclusions
Existing Conditions
Under Existing Conditions (2019), all freeway segments were found to operate acceptably at LOS D or better in the eastbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours, and in the westbound direction during the PM peak hour. Five segments were determined to operate unacceptably in the westbound direction during the AM peak hour.
All intersections were determined to operate acceptably during the PM peak hour. Five intersections were found to operate unacceptably during the AM peak hour.
All intersections were determined to exceed queuing lengths during the AM peak hour, while one intersection was determined to exceed queuing lengths during the PM peak hour.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 216 393
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures In regards to system -wide performance, travel time and average speed are similar in both directions during both peak hours with small variations due to directionality during commute periods. In addition, other system -wide traffic metrics (number of vehicles served by the network, vehicle -hours -delay, and average delay per vehicle) were reported for both the AM and PM peak hours. Consistent with observations in the field, higher levels of congestion occur during the AM peak hour. This is confirmed by the increase in average delay per vehicle, 176.6 seconds during the AM peak hour compared to 15.2 seconds during the PM peak hour. Total delay during the AM peak hour also indicates higher levels of congestion during the AM peak hour.
Opening Year [2025)
Build Alternative 3
Under Opening Year (2025), for Build Alternative 3 all freeway segments were found to operate acceptably at LOS D or better in both eastbound and westbound directions during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, all intersections were determined to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours. Four intersections were determined exceed queuing storage capacity during the AM peak hour, with three intersections exceeding queuing storage capacity during the PM peak hour. In regards to system -wide performance, under Build Alternative 3, travel time, average delay, and the traffic volumes of the overcrossing's existing transportation system were taken into account for Opening Year 2025 conditions. Build Alternative 3 resulted in reduced delay compared to the No -Build Alternative under Opening Year 2025 conditions.
Build Alternative 4
Under Opening Year (2025), for Build Alternative 4 all freeway segments were found to operate acceptably at LOS D or better in both eastbound and westbound directions during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, all intersections were determined to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours. Four intersections were determined exceed queuing storage capacity during the AM peak hour, with three intersections exceeding queuing storage capacity during the PM peak hour. In regards to system -wide performance, under Build Alternative 4, travel time, average delay, and the traffic volumes of the overcrossing's existing transportation system were taken into account for Opening Year 2025 conditions. Build Alternative 3 resulted in reduced delay compared to the No -Build Alternative under Opening Year 2025 conditions.
Design Year (2045)
Build Alternative 3
Under Design Year (2045), for Build Alternative 3 a number of freeway segments were determined to be degraded from an acceptable LOS D or better to LOS E or F. This is caused by shifting bottleneck locations around in the corridor due to mainline capacity constraints on the freeway system. As such, it is important to review overall freeway operations to ensure that the Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 217 394
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures density degradation is actually impacting the freeway mainline. Reviewing the system -wide information indicates the following:
• The project decreases travel time along the corridor as total travel time is decreased from approximately 2,500 vehicle hours of travel in the peak hours in the No -Build Alternative to approximately 1,400 to 2,200 (depending on the build alternative).
• The project increases average travel speeds from 17/18 miles per hour during peak periods in the No -Build Alternative to 22-49 miles per hour. • The project increases the volume of vehicles served from 14,962 in the AM peak period to between 15,762 and 17,831 (depending on the build alternative). Similarly, the PM peak hour volume served increases from 14,435 to between 18,251 and 18,680. This represents approximately 5 percent to 19 percent more vehicles served in the AM peak period and approximately 26 percent more vehicles served in the PM peak period.
It was also determined that Build Alternative 3 would result in a degradation at the 1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road intersection during the AM peak hour where it would result in an increase in delay. This intersection operates at LOS E under the No -Build Alternative. It should be noted that the addition of west/north facing ramps at the 1-10/Singleton Road interchange is a programed improvement in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Given that the project has not yet been defined through the Caltrans oversight process, an assumption was made related to intersection geometrics. As that project goes through the full Caltrans oversight process, it will be required to assess a 20 -year design life and, accordingly, may include additional capacity that is not reflected in this traffic analysis. As such, when the oversight process commences for that effort, Caltrans will ensure that the intersection includes an additional eastbound left -turn lane or an alternative interchange configuration (e.g. a partial cloverleaf or diverging diamond interchange). With these improvements, the intersection would operate acceptably.
Four intersections were determined exceed queuing storage capacity during the AM peak hour, with four intersections exceeding queuing storage capacity during the PM peak hour.
Build Alternative 4
Under Design Year (2045), for Build Alternative 4 a number of freeway segments were determined to be degraded from an acceptable LOS D or better to LOS E or F. This is caused by shifting bottleneck locations around in the corridor due to mainline capacity constraints on the freeway system. As such, it is important to review overall freeway operations to ensure that the density degradation is actually impacting the freeway mainline. Reviewing the system -wide information indicates the following:
• The project decreases travel time along the corridor as total travel time is decreased from approximately 2,500 vehicle hours of travel in the peak Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 218 395
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures hours in the No -Build Alternative to approximately 1,400 to 2,200 (depending on the build alternative).
• The project increases average travel speeds from 17/18 miles per hour during peak periods in the No -Build Alternative to 22-49 miles per hour. • The project increases the volume of vehicles served from 14,962 in the AM peak period to between 15,762 and 17,831 (depending on the build alternative). Similarly, the PM peak hour volume served increases from 14,435 to between 18,251 and 18,680. This represents approximately 5 percent to 19 percent more vehicles served in the AM peak period and approximately 26 percent more vehicles served in the PM peak period.
It was also determined that Build Alternative 4 would result in a degradation at the 1-10 WB Off/On-Ramps/Singleton Road intersection during the AM peak hour where it would result in an increase in delay. This intersection operates at LOS E under the No -Build Alternative. It should be noted that the addition of west/north facing ramps at the 1-10/Singleton Road interchange is a programed improvement in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Given that the project has not yet been defined through the Caltrans oversight process, an assumption was made related to intersection geometrics. As that project goes through the full Caltrans oversight process, it will be required to assess a 20 -year design life and, accordingly, may include additional capacity that is not reflected in this traffic analysis. As such, when the oversight process commences for that effort, Caltrans will ensure that the intersection includes an additional eastbound left -turn lane or an alternative interchange configuration (e.g. a partial cloverleaf or diverging diamond interchange). With these improvements, the intersection would operate acceptably.
Five intersections were determined exceed queuing storage capacity during the AM peak hour, with four intersections exceeding queuing storage capacity during the PM peak hour.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Under Build Alternative 3, sidewalks would be provided on each side of Cherry Valley Boulevard, excluding the overcrossing structures. An eight -foot sidewalk would be provided on the eastbound structure to serve both directions of pedestrian travel. Crosswalks would be provided and would connect to the eastbound structure's sidewalk to the sidewalk on both sides of Cherry Valley Boulevard. Right turn pockets would be provided approaching the westbound on -ramp and eastbound on -ramp. These right turn pockets would include a four -foot bicycle buffer and bypass the Cherry Valley Boulevard crossovers.
Under Build Alternative 4, Cherry Valley Boulevard would be widened to two lanes in each direction with sidewalk in the eastbound direction. The 1- 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard overcrossing would be reconstructed to include an eight -foot sidewalk. A six-foot bicycle buffer would be provided on all proposed right turn pockets within the project limits.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 219 396
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The Build Alternatives would result in permanent beneficial impacts to bicycle and pedestrian movement within the study area, as it would provide non - motorized facilities in areas where limited facilities exist. As such, transportation connectivity would be enhanced as a result of these improvements, and adverse effects would not occur in this regard.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
TT -1 A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared during Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the project.
The Caltrans Transportation Management Plan Guidelines
(TMP Guidelines) identifies the processes, roles, and
responsibilities for preparing and implementing TMPs, as well as useful strategies for reducing congestion and managing work zone traffic impacts. The primary objective of the TMP is to maintain safe movement for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists through the construction zone, as well as minimize traffic delays during the construction period. The TMP prepared for the project shall implement alternate route strategies to minimize adverse effects to roadways and reduce potential congestion.
The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following six major elements:
• Public information/public awareness campaign
• Traveler information strategies
• Incident management
• Construction strategies
• Demand management
• Alternate route strategies
The TMP shall be submitted to Caltrans for review and
approval.
2.1.10 Visual/Aesthetics
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331 [b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]), directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 220 397
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state "with...enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities" (CA Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001[b]).
California Streets and Highways Code Section 92.3 directs Caltrans to use drought resistant landscaping and recycled water when feasible, and incorporate native wildflowers and native and climate -appropriate vegetation into the planting design when appropriate (Measure VIS-4).
Affected Environment
This section is based on the Visual Impact Assessment for the Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (July 2021).
Project Location and Setting
The project location and setting provide the context for determining the type of changes to the existing visual environment. The project is located between Singleton Road and Oak Valley Parkway in the City of Calimesa and, between the San Gorgonio Pass and Yucaipa Valley in western Riverside County. The landscape north of 1-10 is characterized by a rural community with large -lot residential, agricultural and animal -keeping uses, with a commercial core along Beaumont Avenue, north of Cherry Valley Boulevard.
Existing views in the project area, north of 1-10 encompass vegetated hillsides, rural residential, single-family residential, and commercial development, 1-10, and surrounding roadways (i.e., Cherry Valley Boulevard, Roberts Street, Calimesa Boulevard, and Coit Avenue).
The landscape south of 1-10 is characterized by suburban residential and commercial development. Existing views in the project area, south of 1-10 encompass single-family residential, commercial development with ornamental landscaping and pockets of vacant land, 1-10, and surrounding roadways (i.e., Roberts Road, Desert Lawn Drive, Cooper Drive, Peachtree Lane, and Plantation Drive).
Cherry Valley Boulevard is classified as a major arterial by the City of Calimesa General Plan and connects the City to the west-northwest with the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley to the east. The project corridor is defined as the area of land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside the highway right-of-way, and is determined by topography, vegetation, and viewing distance.
Generally, the project site affords uninterrupted views of the surrounding rolling terrain and valley floors, as well as of the prominent but more distant San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains. According to the State Scenic Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 221 398
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Highways Mapping System, there are no officially -designated State Scenic Highways within the project vicinity. The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 243 (SR -243), located more than eight miles southeast of the project site. Views of the project corridor from SR -243 are not readily afforded due to topographic conditions and intervening structures and vegetation.
Visual Resources
Within the project corridor, 1-10 is predominately situated in relatively low-lying areas surrounded by rolling hills. Existing views encompass the existing interchange, as well as northern views toward vegetated hillsides and rural residential development and southern views toward built single-family residential and commercial development. The most prominent visual resources include areas of vegetated hillsides and mature trees. In addition, distant views to the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains are available to the northeast and southeast, respectively.
As stated above, the project site does not include any officially designated or eligible State scenic highways and does not afford views to or from local/county-designated scenic corridors, views, or vistas. However, the Calimesa General Plan considers small-town/natural character and hillsides as protected visual resources and includes provisions related to the preservation of these visual resources.
Public views of the project site include motorists utilizing 1-10 and Cherry Valley Boulevard, residents of the surrounding Cherry Valley community (rural and single-family residents), commercial users, and recreational viewers utilizing local trails (including the Singleton/Bryant Connector trail and the PASEO trails).
Light and Glare
Existing lighting sources within the project area include street lighting and vehicle lighting along Cherry Valley Boulevard, as well as interior lighting and exterior security lighting associated with nearby residences and commercial uses.
Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
With implementation of the No Build Alternative, the 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange would not be reconstructed; therefore, neither temporary nor construction -related effects on the existing visual setting or aesthetic conditions within the vicinity would occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in temporary impacts from construction staging areas, equipment storage, and night-time construction activities that Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 222 399
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would require lighting. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment, truck traffic, and other common construction activities would be exposed to motorists, community residents, and recreational users. However, these visual impacts would be short-term and would cease upon project completion (construction is scheduled to be completed in approximately 24 months).
Both Build Alternatives could require nighttime construction activities which could potentially result in light impacts to nearby residents and motorists traveling on roadways through and adjacent to the project site. However, the project area contains existing sources of nighttime lighting (i.e., vehicle headlights, streetlights, residential lights, etc.) and therefore the new light source may not be perceived as obtrusive by viewers. Additionally, Measure VIS-1 is recommended to minimize temporary project -related light and glare effects by directing construction lighting away from off -site land uses, containing and directing lighting toward the specific area of construction. As such, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would not result in substantial temporary adverse effects in this regard.
Permanent Impacts
No -Build Alternative
With implementation of the No Build Alternative, the 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange would not be reconstructed; however, maintenance of the facility would continue, and planned projects would be constructed in the project vicinity. With implementation of the No -Build Alternative, the overall visual setting or aesthetic condition of the project corridor would not be altered.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would involve the reconstruction of a new bridge overcrossing, reconstructing the eastbound and westbound on- and off - ramps, installing retaining walls, sound walls, and signalized intersections, constructing an auxiliary lane along 1-10, and realigning Calimesa Boulevard.
Both Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would include similar improvements to the I- 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange; however, Build Alternative 3 would result in a more developed appearance, given the diverging diamond interchange would be larger than the existing interchange. The proposed partial cloverleaf interchange under Build Alternative 4 would result in a new bridge structure that is generally similar in appearance to the existing bridge.
Both Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would be constructed in an existing setting that is already comprised of roadway infrastructure and suburban development similar in form, line, color, and texture to the existing transportation uses south of 1-10. The proposed sound walls and retaining walls for both Build Alternatives would also be similar in character to the existing development south of 1-10. Disturbed areas and slopes would be planted and irrigated for aesthetic, erosion control, and water quality purposes. Although both Build Alternatives would be visually similar to the existing developed condition of the site, implementation of Measures VIS-2 Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 223 400
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures and VIS-3 would further maintain consistency with the existing infrastructure and the context of the project area (color, form, and texture) by implementing landscape and/or architectural treatments and by installing compatible landscaping along the freeway.
Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, a new traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Calimesa Boulevard and at the 1- 10 eastbound and westbound off- and on -ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard.
However, the traffic signal would be similar in character to existing signals located to the south of 1-10. As such, implementation of both Build Alternatives would not result in substantial permanent adverse effects.
The proposed project would be designed in conformance with the objectives and policies identified in the Calimesa and Riverside County General Plans, as well as the County of Riverside 1-10 Corridor Master Plan (CRCMP), to maintain visual character/quality. Additionally, implementation of Measures VIS-2 through VIS-4 would reduce potential long-term visual effects on the existing visual setting or aesthetic condition. For this reason, existing views in the project corridor will not be substantially altered and project features will appear compatible with the visual character experienced of the project corridor. The visual quality experienced within the project corridor will not be substantially reduced as a result of the Build Alternatives, as seen from motorists, surrounding residents in the community, and recreational users.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
VIS-1 During nighttime construction activities, the construction contractor shall minimize project -related light and glare to the maximum extent feasible by directing construction lighting away from land uses located off -site and shall contain and direct construction lighting toward the specific area of construction.
VIS-2 To maintain consistency with the existing infrastructure (i.e., bridges, walls, etc.) in the project area, landscape and/or architectural treatments (i.e., color, texture, etc.) for the structure elements of the proposed project shall be determined in consultation with the District Landscape Architect during the Final Design process. Elements discussed corridor -wide, as well as those identified for Area A, of the 1-10 Corridor Master Plan (1-10 Corridor Master Plan) shall be incorporated as applicable pertaining to structures, slope paving, landscape design, signage, and lighting.
VIS-3 To maintain the context of the project area (color, form, and texture) the proposed project shall install landscaping that is compatible with the existing landscape along the freeway. The landscape concept and plant palette shall be determined in consultation with the District Landscape Architect during the Final Design process. Erosion control plant species utilized shall Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 224 401
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures be determined by the District Landscape Architect to ensure that the mix and application strategy is appropriate for the specific soil composition of the area. In addition, all proposed landscaping species shall be well suited for the local climate, humidity, soil types, and local wind.
VIS-4 Based on California Streets and Highways Code Section 92.3, Caltrans shall use drought resistant landscaping and recycled water when feasible, and incorporate native wildflowers and native and climate -appropriate vegetation into the planting design when appropriate.
2.1.11 Cultural Resources
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 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 Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 225 402
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 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. Include the following sentence as applicable. 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 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)3 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.
Affected Environment
This section is based primarily on the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) for the Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (dated March 2021).
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project was established in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in accordance with Section 106 PA Stipulation VIII.A. The APE was established from the project footprint and includes all construction areas, temporary construction easements (TCEs), construction signage, and staging areas (i.e., the direct APE), plus a 100 -foot buffer to include potential indirect effects that may develop as a result of this undertaking. The overall APE encompasses 128.54 acres, with the direct APE, or project footprint, covering an area of
24.76 acres for Alternative 3 and an area of 27.53 acres for Alternative 4.
The vertical limits of the APE were approximately 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) for the excavation of abutment and bent footings, 25 feet bgs for 3 The MOU is located on the SER at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/5024mou-15-a11 y.pdf.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 226 403
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures foundations of overhead signs proposed along 1-10, and 50 feet bgs for the geotechnical auger borings.
Based on the records search and literature review conducted as part of the HPSR, a total of 18 cultural resource studies have been conducted previously within the project study area since 1978. Two of the studies involve portions of the direct APE and two historic resources were identified: 1) a historic - period refuse scatter (CA-RIV-7924H/(33-014869), and 2) a historic -period structural remnants site (CA-RIV-7925H/33-014870). The historic resources were previously documented, evaluated, and determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP/CRHR.
As a result of the survey conducted for the HPSR, two newly identified cultural resources were documented within the APE: 1) a historic -period structural remnants site (/E-3997-01 H); and 2) a historic -period built - environment farm complex site (APN 413-270-014). These resources were documented and evaluated according to NRHP and CRHR criteria. • Historic -Period Concrete Foundation (IE-3997-01 H): The site consists of two historic -period structure foundations. The first second feature on -site is a structure that consists of a cinderblock, concrete, and rebar, collapsed structure foundation with remnants of a red tile interior floor. The second feature on -site consists of three foundation walls. Additionally, the HPSR identifies this site as an archaeological resource. However, during the archaeological survey, the site was found to contain no artifacts. Therefore, the site is determined to be ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. • Historic -Period Built -Environment Farm Complex (APN 413-270-014): The property is a 5.84 -acre, multi -feature agricultural, American Vernacular farm complex. Field surveying indicates that there are currently six extant structures are located on the parcel: two residential structures, a detached garage, barn, workshop, and chicken coup. Five of the structures constructed between approximately 1953-1967 are more than 50 years of age. The site would not qualify as a significant resource under any of the four NRHP or CRHR criterions. Therefore, the site is determined to be ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
Based on the HPSR, there are no historic properties located within the project APE that are currently listed on the NRHP or CRHR, and there are no properties previously determined eligible for the NRHP or CRHR within the APE. Because there are no historic resources or archaeological resources that are on or eligible for the NRHP, there are no such resources within the APE that are subject to the provisions of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
APE One -mile Buffer Zone
According to the HPSR, previous cultural resource studies identified and documented approximately 15 cultural resources within a one -mile buffer of Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 227 404
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures the direct APE. These resources include three prehistoric archaeological sites, three historical archaeological sites, one historical object, one California Historical Landmark (CHL No. 749), and seven built -environment resources.
The prehistoric archaeological sites are lithic scatters. The historical sites include a refuse scatter and various structural remnants. The object consists of a piece of historical farm equipment. All the prehistoric archaeological sites were recorded on the ground surface, not in subsurface contexts. The built - environment resources include the James Singleton Ranch complex and associated buildings, the Chino -Hayfield, and the Devers Vista transmission lines. Based on the results of the records search and literature review, the were no previously identified archaeological resources found within the project's APE.
Native American Consultation
An initial request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was made on March 6, 2019 to elicit pertinent cultural resource information available in the Sacred Lands File. In a reply dated March 13, 2019, the NAHC stated the Sacred Land File search for the Project was completed with negative results, but that the area is considered sensitive for cultural resources. The NAHC provided a list of Native American contacts within the region. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and as required under CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), Caltrans consulted with pertinent Native American contacts to identify potential resources within the APE. These contacts include representatives of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination, provides additional detail regarding consultation efforts.
Local Historical Society Historic Preservation Groups
The San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society (SGPHS), the Calimesa Historical Society, and the Yucaipa Valley Historical Society were contacted on June 11, 2020 and July 1, 2020, regarding the proposed project and potential historical resources near the project APE. No response was received from any of the three institutions.
Environmental Consequences
No -Build Alternative
The No -Build Alternative would not result in any construction or ground disturbance; therefore, impacts to cultural resources would not occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Based on the HPSR findings and SHPO concurrence provided on June 16, 2021, no historic properties occur within the APE and the Build Alternative would have no effects to historic properties.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 228 405
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earth -moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find.
If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner contacted. If the remains are thought by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native NAHC, who, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact Andrew Walters, the District Environmental Branch Chief ([909] 383-2647) or Gary Jones, District Native American Coordinator ([909] 383-7505), 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.
The Build Alternatives would not affect any cultural resources that are recognized by Caltrans as historic properties. As such, adverse impacts to cultural resources would not occur.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No measures are proposed.
2.2 Physical Environment
2.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain
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 (FHWA) requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650 Subpart A.
To comply, the following must be analyzed:
• The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments. • Risks of the action.
• Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
• Support of incompatible floodplain development.
• Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values affected by the project.
The base floodplain is defined as "the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year." An encroachment is defined as "an action within the limits of the base floodplain." Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 229 406
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Environment
This section is based on the Location Hydraulic Study (LHS) and Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report (SFER) dated October 2019 prepared for the project.
The project site is located within unincorporated areas of Riverside County and the City of Calimesa. According to the LHS, the project site is within the boundaries of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) panel #06065C0785G (effective date August 28, 2008). As illustrated on Figure 2.2.1- 1, Flood Zones, the project site is located in a Zone X designated area. Zone X areas are determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain.
El Casco Creek is the primary drainage feature within the project area, consisting of an existing unlined natural waterway upstream of Cherry Valley Boulevard. It traverses Cherry Valley Blvd east of the I-10/Cherry Valley Blvd overcrossing via an existing 10 -foot by 9 -foot reinforced concrete box (RCB).
This RCB then outlets to an existing concrete lined trapezoidal channel, where El Casco Creek continues to flow northwesterly in between the 1-10 westbound on -ramp and Calimesa Boulevard. This concrete trapezoidal channel has a bottom width of 10 feet, depth of 4 feet, and side slopes of
1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) at the upstream end just north of Cherry Valley Boulevard. Downstream from the confluence with the existing double 8 -foot by 5 -foot RCB crossing Calimesa Road, and before El Casco Creek traverses under 1-10 via a double 10 -foot by 7 -foot RCB, the channel dimensions are 21 feet bottom width, 4 feet depth, and side slopes of 1.5:1. At the outlet of the double 10 -foot by 7 -foot RCB culvert crossing at 1-10, El Casco Creek returns to an unlined natural waterway where it continues to flow westerly until it confluences with the San Timoteo Creek Reach 3 (Yucaipa Creek to Headwaters) approximately three miles west of the project site. El Casco Creek within the project study limits currently does not provide natural or and beneficial floodplain values.
Environmental Consequences
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, none of the project improvements would be implemented; therefore, there would be no impacts related to hydrology or floodplains.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 230 407
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.1-1: Flood Zones
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Site Boundary
City of Calimesa Jurisdiction
Zone A
Zone AE
Zone X
Q0 025 0.s
11 Miles
Flood Zones
i^11'21 .iN 1 1;1
Figure 2.2.1-1
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 231 408
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Build Alternatives 3 and 4
As previously discussed, the project area is located in Zone X, a zone designated as outside the 0.2 percent annual chance of flood, and is located outside the of 100 -year floodplain. Thus, no adverse effects related to floodplains would occur.
The LHS determined that the implementation of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would not introduce significant risk, nor would it result in a localized rise in the water surface elevation at El Casco Creek. There are no floodplains and no surrounding inundation areas within the project limits. Additionally, El Casco Creek currently does not provide the following natural and beneficial floodplain values that are listed in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual: fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, forestry, natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge. The proposed improvements would not result in an increase in water surface elevations, and the 100 -year storm event flow would be contained within the channel. The Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report (SFER) included in the LHS determined that the combined Assessed Risk Level for the project is "Low Risk". Proposed improvements under the Build Alternatives include reconfiguring the I- 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange adjacent and over the El Casco Creek. The Build Alternatives would result in minor increases in off -site stormwater runoff tributary to El Casco Creek.
Based on the LHS, the existing concrete trapezoidal channel is insufficient in conveying the 100 -year peak runoff upon implementation of Build Alternatives 3 and 4. The existing channel has a depth of 4 feet, while the calculated maximum flow depth is approximately 6 feet (particularly at the confluence with the double 8 -foot by 5 -foot RCB crossing Calimesa Boulevard). In order to provide additional capacity and freeboard, the Build Alternatives would increase the depth of the existing channel by extending the tops of the channel side slopes in kind while maintaining the invert of the channel. It is proposed to increase the depth by 3.5 feet from the inlet of the existing double 10 -foot by 7 -foot RCB culvert to the confluence with the existing double 8 -foot by 5 -foot RCB. Upstream of this confluence, it is proposed to increase the depth by one foot up to the outlet of the existing 10 -foot by 9 -foot RCB traversing Cherry Valley Boulevard. This would require minimal proposed grading as the existing and proposed elevations of Calimesa Boulevard and the 1-10 westbound on -ramp are considerably higher than the concrete channel. As noted in the LHS, the proposed increase in channel depth would not result in an increase to the existing water surface elevations, as the increase in channel depth will maintain the existing channel invert and side slope dimensions, while extending the tops of the channel side slopes in kind. Proposed project improvements include reconfiguring the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange adjacent and over the El Casco Creek.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 232 409
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The project would result in minor increases in off -site stormwater runoff tributary to El Casco Creek. Based on the LHS, the existing concrete trapezoidal channel is insufficient in conveying the 100 -year peak runoff upon implementation of Build Alternatives 3 and 4. The existing channel has a depth of 4 feet, while the calculated maximum flow depth is approximately 6 feet (particularly at the confluence with the double 8 -foot by 5 -foot RCB crossing Calimesa Boulevard). In order to provide additional capacity and freeboard, the Build Alternatives would increase the depth of the existing channel by extending the tops of the channel side slopes in kind while maintaining the invert of the channel.
It is proposed to increase the depth by 3.5 feet from the inlet of the existing double 10 -foot by 7 -foot RCB culvert to the confluence with the existing double 8 -foot by 5 -foot RCB. Upstream of this confluence, it is proposed to increase the depth by one foot up to the outlet of the existing 10 -foot by 9 -foot RCB traversing Cherry Valley Boulevard. This would require minimal proposed grading as the existing and proposed elevations of Calimesa Boulevard and the 1-10 westbound on -ramp are considerably higher than the concrete channel. As noted in the LHS, the proposed increase in channel depth would not result in an increase to the existing water surface elevations, as the increase in channel depth will maintain the existing channel invert and side slope dimensions, while extending the tops of the channel side slopes in kind.
El Casco Creek is contained within the channel for the proposed condition 100 -year storm event, and therefore has no floodplain. El Casco Creek within the project study limits currently do not provide natural and beneficial floodplain values as listed in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual; therefore, the proposed Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts related to hydrology or floodplain values.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No measures are proposed.
2.2.2 Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff
Regulatory Setting
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 source4 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 4 A point source is any discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a man-made ditch.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 233 410
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important CWA sections:
Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below).
Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) 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 Individual. There are two types of General permits: Regional and Nationwide. 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 Regional or Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of the USACE's Individual permits. There are two types of Individual permits: Standard permits and Letters of Permission. For Individual permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 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 Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 234 411
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order.
The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluents standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause "significant degradation" to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements.
See 33 CFR 320.4. A discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and Other Waters section.
State 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, RWQCBs designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions and then set criteria necessary to protect those 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.
5 The U.S. EPA defines "effluent" as "wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall."
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 235 412
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 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 Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). An MS4 is defined as "any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human -made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water." The SWRCB has identified the Department as an owner/operator of an MS4 under federal regulations. The Department's MS4 permit covers all Department rights -of -way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted.
The Department's MS4 Permit, Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ (adopted on September 19, 2012 and effective on July 1, 2013), as amended by Order No. 2014 -0006 -EXEC (effective January 17, 2014), Order No. 2014-0077-DWQ (effective May 20, 2014) and Order No. 2015 -0036 -EXEC (conformed and effective April 7, 2015) has three basic requirements:
1. The Department must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see below);
2. The Department must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to effectively control storm water and non -storm water discharges; and
3. The Department storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs), to the maximum extent practicable, and other measures as the SWRCB determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards.
To comply with the permit, the Department developed the Statewide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP assigns responsibilities within the Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 236 413
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Department for implementing storm water management procedures and practices as well as training, public education and participation, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP describes the minimum procedures and practices the Department uses to reduce pollutants in storm water and non -storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the selection and implementation of BMPs. The proposed 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 and effective on July 1, 2010), as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (effective February 14, 2011) and Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ (effective on July 17, 2012). The permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of the General Construction 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 (SWPPPs); to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit.
The 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 SWPPP. In accordance with the Department's SWMP and Standard Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre.
Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the U.S. must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will be in compliance with state water quality standards. The most common federal permits triggering 401 Certification are CWA Section 404 permits issued by the USACE. The 401 Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 237 414
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before the USACE issues a 404 permit.
In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project. As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as 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.
Affected Environment
This section is based upon the Scoping Questionnaire for Water Quality Issues (SQWQI) (dated August 2020), the Location Hydraulic Study (LHS) (dated October 2019), and the Preliminary Drainage Report (PDR) (dated August 2020) prepared for the project.
Receiving Surface Water Bodies
The project is located within the San Timoteo Wash watershed, which is part of the Santa Ana Region (SAR) Riverside County Watershed Action Plan (WAP) developed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) in 2017. The general drainage pattern within the project vicinity flows from southeast to northwest and drains towards El Casco Creek (an unlined natural waterway located south of Cherry Valley Boulevard). Storm water that falls within the project boundary drains directly to El Casco Creek, which then discharges to San Timoteo Creek Reach 3, a creek that is approximately two and a half miles downstream to the west of the project site. Discharge from San Timoteo Creek Reach 3 then flows in a southwest direction to reach the Santa Ana River, which in turn discharges into the Pacific Ocean. Figure 2.2.2-1, Receiving Waters, shows the location of the receiving water bodies in relation to the proposed project.
Groundwater Hydrology
The proposed project falls within the Upper Santa Ana River basin and the San Timoteo hydrologic sub -area groundwater basin. According to the SQWQI, the Upper Santa Ana River basin is ranked as very low on the basin prioritization list. According to the Calimesa General Plan, the area is served by groundwater from the San Timoteo Sub Basin of the Beaumont Groundwater Basin. The City of Calimesa is also located within the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone.
The SQWQI notes that there are five wells within one mile of the existing Cherry Valley Boulevard overcrossing that provided groundwater measurements with groundwater depth between 92 feet and 264 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 238 415
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.2-1: Receiving Waters
41 '1 'h
Wrr,dar.
1 1:}ernline
Lake
Ar reties.]
,. -14 4;
Rwo-
a n:.�lira Glendora
url rd Furr t.,na Kumar • . San
Baldwin Fail
Er.Irlran t4 .
West Ceti/it-4-
Norwalk
er r rta:
Fullerton
Sag
An ,alienn
JOran ToGarden G p
// Santa Ana
Valley
1,oinF
Munn' an
Be 1 Costa Me —La
Nrrwv,rt Berea'
Laguna Beach
Legend
Project Location
- Row Direction
Receiving Waters
antarlo
PomQn.l
ChM. -
Hill:
J =J •T
,,,.
L .14.P Ftreil
Mir
Cnror,;t
{
Ranch.: Ser
M arq,xl c1
hllatap Viejo
L oVurra NI ul-1
San • I
H4,7I�vs�
Be r • ina
Redlan'I'
r
Grand Up_ ��,
i4.et M de
Protect
Location
rI,:'..Ilr 1
ds' .41___;;;60Q
0°
M❑reno Valley
Texne- .ula
Muni
F 'l
s+
rl.
/' 0 2.5 5 10
Miles
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Receiving Waters
❑1021 JN 16915
Figure 2.2.2.1
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 239 416
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Municipal Supply
High -risk areas include highway locations where spills or other releases from Caltrans ROW, roadways, or facilities may discharge directly to municipal or domestic water supply reservoirs or ground water percolation facilities. The Caltrans 2018-2019 District 8 Work Plan indicates that no high -risk areas are located within the proposed project area.
Beneficial Uses
A beneficial use identifies the ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and/or wildlife. The beneficial uses for Beaumont Groundwater include Agricultural, Industrial Service Supply, and Industrial Process Supply. Due to its distance from the project location, beneficial uses for the Santa Ana River Basin were not listed within the SQWQI. The beneficial uses for San Timoteo Creek Reach 3 are identified and listed below:
• Groundwater Recharge (GWR)
• Water Contact Recreation (REC 1)
• Non -contact Water Recreation (REC 2)
• Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)
Wildlife Habitat (WILD)It should be noted that the beneficial use of Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) was excepted for this water body.
Beneficial uses for Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone are listed below:
• Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN)
• Agricultural (AGR)
• Industrial Service Supply (IND)
• Industrial Process Supply (PROC)
Impairments
According to the SQWQI, San Timoteo Creek Reach 3 is listed as impaired for Indicator Bacteria, specifically E. coli. However, no TMDL has been established for San Timoteo Creek. Therefore, the watershed does not have any associated TMDLs developed.
Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, no project improvements would be implemented; thus, no temporary impacts related to water quality would occur.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 240 417
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Construction of either of the Build Alternatives could potentially result in water quality impacts associated with the contribution of pollutants to receiving water bodies during the temporary construction process. Pollutants during construction would include sediment, metals, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Best Management Practices (BMPs), including construction site BMPs (e.g., storm drain inlet protection, temporary fiber rolls, gravel bed berms, etc.) and job management BMPs (i.e., wind erosion control, spill prevention and control, etc.) would minimize these potential individual or cumulative combined impacts on water quality, including downstream waterbodies. The selection of BMPs will be determined during final design.
The Build Alternatives would be required to adhere to existing temporary construction related NPDES requirements, which would minimize impacts in this regard. Compliance with the Caltrans Construction General Permit (NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Order No.2009- 0009-DWQ — NPDES No. CAS000002) would be required since the site occurs within Caltrans right of way, and would require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would specify BMPs to be used during construction of the project to minimize or avoid water pollution, thereby reducing potential temporary impacts to water quality. The project is required to be notified to the State Water Quality Control Board via the Stormwater Multi -Application Tracking System (SMARTS). Project registration documents would be filed, and a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number would then be assigned. Upon completion of the project, a Notice of Termination would be submitted to the SWRCB to indicate that construction has been completed. Thus, adverse effects related to water quality would not occur.
Permanent Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, none of the project improvements would be implemented; therefore, no increase in runoff flow velocities, volumes, or peak flow rates or adverse effects to water quality would occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
The Build Alternatives have the potential to result in impacts to water as a result of long-term operations. Potential pollutant sources associated with operations may include, but are not limited to, motor vehicles, highway maintenance, illegal dumping, spills, and landscaping care. These sources typically result in the generation of sediment, organic compounds (i.e. petroleum hydrocarbons), trash, bacteria, oil and grease, and metals that affect water quality.
The proposed project is anticipated to add new impervious surface to the project site. Table 2.2.2-1, Impervious Surface Area for Build Alternatives Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 241 418
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures shows that the total impervious area increases over existing conditions by approximately 9.48 acres under Build Alternative 3 and approximately 11.84 acres under Build Alternative 4. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would result in a permanent increase in impervious surfaces that would induce an increase in the volume of storm water runoff.
Table 2.2.2-1: Impervious Surface Area for Build Alternatives Alternatives
Current
Impervious
Surface (acres)
New Impervious
Surface (acres)
Total Impervious
Surface (acres)
3 1.35
9.48 10.83
4 1.01
11.84 12.85
Source: 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Scoping Questionnaire for Water Quality Issues (August 2020).
Pursuant to Caltrans NPDES permit requirements, the project would be required to implement a range of design pollution prevention, treatment, and maintenance BMPs. Design pollution prevention BMPs are measures required under the Caltrans MS4 Permit that focus on reducing or eliminating runoff and controlling sources of pollutants during operation of the project (e.g., slope/surface protection systems, concentrated flow conveyance systems, preservation of existing vegetation, etc.). These BMPs would meet the objective of maximizing vegetated surfaces, preventing downstream erosion, and stabilizing soil areas. The selection of BMPs will be determined during final design. Upon adherence to the Caltrans MS4 Permit, which would require implementation of various BMPs to minimize operational water quality impacts, effects on downstream receiving water bodies and aquatic life would not be adverse.
The Build Alternatives would also include Detention Pollution Prevention (DPP) strategies to minimize runoff, maximize infiltration and reduce erosion.
DPP strategies include implementing slope/surface protection systems, implementing concentrated flow conveyance systems, and preserving existing vegetation. These strategies, in addition to the proposed treatment BMPs, would aim to treat at a minimum 100% of the Water Quality Flow (WQF) generated from the proposed increase in impervious surface. Since the proposed treatment BMPs and DPP strategies would provide treatment to over 100% of the overall WQF for both Build Alternatives, no adverse effects to the receiving water bodies (El Casco Creek and San Timoteo Creek Reach 3) are anticipated.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No measures are proposed.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 242 419
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
2.2.3 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Topography
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. Structures are designed using the Department's Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). The SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for highway bridges designed in California. A bridge's category and classification will determine its seismic performance level and which methods are used for estimating the seismic demands and structural capabilities. For more information, please see the Department's Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Design Criteria.
Affected Environment
This section is based on the findings of the Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (PGDR) (June 2020) that was prepared for the proposed project.
Regional Geology
The project area is located in a narrow alluvial valley between the foothills of the San Gorgonio Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains near the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California.
The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province consists of a series of northwest -trending mountain ranges and valleys bounded on the north by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the Los Angeles Basin, and on the south by the Pacific Ocean.
The province is a seismically active region characterized by a series of northwest trending strike -slip faults. The most prominent of the nearby fault zones include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and the Elsinore fault zones, all of which have been known to be active during Quaternary time.
The topography within the province is generally characterized by broad alluvial valleys separated by linear mountain ranges. This northwest -trending linear fabric is created by the regional faulting within the granitic basement rock of the Southern California Batholith. Broad, linear, alluvial valleys have been formed by erosion of these principally granitic mountain ranges.
Local Geology
Based on the PGDR, review of available geologic mapping indicates that on - site soils consist of three alluvial units: young axial -valley deposits, old Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 243 420
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures alluvial -fan deposits, and very old alluvial -fan deposits. Descriptions of each unit are provided below.
• Qya: Young axial -valley deposits (Holocene and uppermost Pleistocene) — Slightly to moderately consolidated sandy, muddy, and gravelly sediment deposited by through -going streams of axial valleys. This unit is primarily exposed on the northeast side of the project area and underlies the east end of the overcrossing, westbound on -ramp, the 1-10 travel lanes northwest of the westbound on -ramp, and a portion of the travel lanes southeast of the overcrossing.
• Qof: Old alluvial -fan deposits (upper to middle Pleistocene) —Sandy, gravelly, and silty sediment deposited by streams that formed alluvial -fan landforms. This unit underlies the eastbound off -ramp and on -ramp, central and western portion of the overcrossing, a portion of the travel lines southeast of the eastbound off -ramp, and all the travel lanes southeast of the eastbound on -ramp.
• Qvof: Very old alluvial -fan deposits (middle to lower Pleistocene) —Sandy and gravelly deposits. This unit is exposed in the southwestern side of the project area. The older alluvium typically can be distinguished from the younger alluvium by level of induration. The older units are weakly indurated while the younger unit is not indurated.
The ground surface varies from approximately 2,364 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the area of the Roberts Road southwest bridge abutment to approximately 2,350 feet at the project limits along Cherry Valley Boulevard to the east. The eastbound and westbound on-ramp/off-ramp intersections with Cherry Valley Boulevard are located at approximately 2,378 and 2,360 feet amsl, respectively.
Subsurface Soil Conditions
According to the PGDR, six cone penetrometer tests (CPT) and four borings were performed in February 1961 along and near Cherry Valley Boulevard and its overcrossing of 1-10 during a field investigation by Caltrans. CPTs were advanced to depths of up to approximately 46.0 feet bgs. Borings were advanced to depths up to approximately 51.0 feet bgs. The results indicated slightly compact to compact light reddish tan to grayish brown loose to very dense silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, pebbles and cobbles, to the maximum explored depth of 51.0 feet bgs.
Groundwater Conditions
According to the PGDR, the CPTs and borings conducted in 1961 along and near the interchange did not encounter groundwater to the maximum explored depth of approximately 51 feet bgs. The PGDR indicates that there are five groundwater wells within a one -mile distance of the I-10/Cherry Boulevard overcrossing that provide groundwater measurements. Their depths range from 92 bgs to 264 bgs. Historically, the high groundwater at the Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 244 421
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures project site is not known with certainty but it is anticipated to be deeper than 50 feet bgs.
Faulting and Seismicity
The project site is located in seismically active southern California and is subject to earthquake shaking. However, the project site is not located within a recognized State of California or Riverside County Earthquake Fault Zone.
Figure 2.2.3-1, Regional Fault Map, shows the site location relative to regional faults.
The two nearest faults to the project site are the San Timoteo Fault and the Cherry Valley Thrust Fault. The San Timoteo Fault is a roughly northwest - southeast trending strike -slip fault mapped approximately 2,200 feet southwest of the center of the existing Cherry Valley Boulevard at its closest point. The Cherry Valley Thrust Fault is generally a northwest -southeast trending fault mapped approximately 3,400 feet northeast of the of the center of the overcrossing at its closest point. According to the PGDR, neither of these faults are considered to be active.
The San Gorgonio Pass Fault is a reverse fault located approximately 1.46 miles north of the project site at its closest point and trends roughly east- southeast. It has a Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) of 6.7 and is the controlling fault for the project site. This fault is also the closest active fault zone, as specified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Since the project site is not located within the confines of this fault zone, the risk of surface rupture at the site is considered low.
Geologic Hazards
The PGDR does not indicate significant geologic hazards (such as land sliding, ground settlement, embankment failures, very soft soils, severe erosion, etc.) within the project area. Further investigation of these hazards would be conducted during the PS&E phase of the project.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon in which a cohesionless soil mass within the upper 50 feet of the ground surface, suffers a substantial reduction in its shear strength, due the development of excess pore pressures. During earthquakes, excess pore pressures in saturated soil deposits may develop as a result of induced cyclic shear stresses, resulting in liquefaction. Soil liquefaction generally occurs in submerged granular soils and non -plastic silts during or after strong ground shaking.
Preliminary analysis within the PGDR determined that, due to the fact that current and historic static groundwater level is likely deeper than 50.0 feet bgs, the project site has low potential for liquefaction.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 245 422
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.3-1: Regional Fault Map
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 1Q/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT NOT 7o SCALE
Regional Fault Map
i...:: 114169171
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 246 Figure 2.2.3.1
Item 9.
423
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Fault Rupture
As noted above, the San Gorgonio Pass Fault is located approximately 1.46 miles north of the project site and is the nearest active fault to the project site.
This fault is also the closest active fault zone, as specified by the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Since the project site is not located within the confines of this fault zone, the risk of surface rupture at the site is considered low.
Tsunami/Seiches
The project is located within the inland region of southern California; thus, tsunamis do not pose a hazard to this site since it is located approximately 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Seiching would be possible within the nearby drainage channel if a large earthquake coincides with a high -flow level event.
However, due to the size and elevation of the channel, it is likely that any water from reaching the project area would be precluded.
Soil Erosion Potential
On -site soils are anticipated to be predominantly fine- to coarse -grained silty sands and are susceptible to erosion. Erosion control measures are discussed below.
Soil Expansion Potential
As described above, on -site soils are anticipated to range from predominantly fine- to coarse -grained silty sands. Coarse -grained soils are generally anticipated to be non -expansive or have a very low expansion potential. Fine- grained soils may be susceptible to low to high expansion potential. The PGDR recommends that soil expansion potential should be evaluated further during PS&E phase of the project.
Slope Stability
The slopes within the project limits have slope gradients of approximately 2H:1V or flatter and appear to be grossly stable under static conditions and are assumed to also be stable under seismic loading. For this reason, it is not anticipated that the Build Alternatives would have a substantial effect on slope stability on -site; however this will be confirmed during the PS&E phase.
Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
No improvements to the existing interchange would occur under the No -Build Alternative. Therefore, it would not result in temporary adverse effects related to geology, soils, seismicity, or topography.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Earthwork activities during project construction would result in adverse effects to the geological environment (i.e., soil erosion and siltation). Excavation and construction activities in these areas may result in minor changes to existing Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 247 424
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures topography. The project would adhere to the earthwork recommendations provided in the PGDR prepared for the project, in addition to the requirements of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 19, Earthwork. Soil compaction would be accomplished in accordance with Section 19-5, Compaction of the Standard Specifications. Fill placed during widening of the embankments would be benched into the existing slopes in accordance with Section 19-6, Embankment Construction of the Standard Specifications.
Construction of the project could expose construction workers and the traveling public to potential adverse effects associated with seismic ground shaking. The project would comply with current Caltrans' procedures and design criteria regarding seismic design to minimize any adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. Earthwork would be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 19, which require standardized measures related to compacted fill, over -excavation and recompacting, and retaining walls, among other requirements. Additionally, Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topic 113, Geotechnical Design Report, would require that a site -specific, geotechnical field investigation is performed for the project during the PS&E phase. With the adherence to these Caltrans procedures, adverse effects would not occur in this regard.
Permanent Impacts
No -Build Alternative
No improvements to the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard would occur under the No -Build Alternative and, therefore, it would not result in permanent adverse effects related to geology, soils, seismicity, or topography.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Fault -Induced Ground Rupture
As discussed above, the project limits do not include active surface faults and the potential for fault -induced ground rupture is considered low. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The project would not result in adverse effects in this regard.
Liquefaction/Seismically-Induced Settlement
Preliminary liquefaction analysis within the PGDR determined that, due to the absence of shallow groundwater within the project site, the potential for adverse effects related to liquefaction would be low. However, the PGDR recommends that liquefaction potential is further examined during the PS&E phase of the project. If the potential for liquefaction is determined to be present during PS&E, potentially affected structures may include the lengthening of pile foundations, ground improvement, and/or designing foundations to withstand larger movements. Effects of the Build Alternatives related to liquefaction would not be adverse.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 248 425
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Soil Erosion Potential
As discussed previously, native soils within the project limits are anticipated to bed fine- to coarse -grained silty sands, and therefore are subject to moderate to severe erosion. The majority of slopes proposed as part of the Build Alternatives would be sloped at 4H:1V or flatter; based on the PGDR, fill slopes of up to 2H:1V are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. These areas would be maintained with erosion protection and drainage control in accordance with Section 21 of Caltrans Standard Specifications (2015). The project will adhere to the earthwork recommendations provided in the PGDR.
Potential impacts regarding soil erosion would not be substantial.
Soil Expansion Potential
As described previously, fine-grained soils (silts and clays) within the project limits range from very minimal to high expansion potential. The Build Alternatives would adhere to the earthwork recommendations provided in the PGDR, and soil expansion would be further evaluated during the PS&E phase. Potential impacts regarding soil expansion would not be substantial.
Subsidence and Settlement
Subsidence occurs as a result of subsurface fluid extraction (e.g., groundwater, petroleum) or compression of soft, geologically young sediments. Determining whether or not subsidence would occur would depend on the construction equipment utilized for the project. As discussed previously, the project will adhere to the earthwork recommendations provided in the PGDR prepared for the project, and the potential subsidence or settlement would be further evaluated during the PS&E phase. Potential impacts related to subsidence/settlement would not be adverse.
Stability of Embankment and Fill Slopes
Under the Build Alternatives, approach embankments constructed of compacted fill soils would be required for the proposed bridge widening and new ramps. According to the latest edition of the Caltrans HDM, fill slopes should be 4H:1V or flatter. Embankment fill slopes steeper than 4H:1V must be approved by the District Landscape Architect. Based on the PGDR, fill slopes of up to 2H:1V are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Slope stability analysis will be performed during the PS&E phase. Upon adherence to recommendations provided in the PGDR, potential impacts related to slope stability would not be adverse.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No measures are proposed.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 249 426
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
2.2.4 Paleontology
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. • 23 United States Code (USC) 1.9(a) requires that the use of Federal -aid funds must be in conformity with all federal and state laws. • 23 United States Code (USC) 305 authorizes the appropriation and use of federal highway funds for paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of any state, in compliance with 16 USC 431-433 above and state law.
Under California law, paleontological resources are protected by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Affected Environment
This section is based on the Combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (dated December 2020) prepared for the project.
Stratigraphy
According to the PIR/PER, the surficial geology of the project study area consists of Pleistocene alluvial -fan deposits (Qvof3, Qof2), Holocene axial - valley deposits (Qya5), and Holocene deposits from recently active channels and active washes (Qvyw2, Qvywm). Notable units mapped near the project area include Pleistocene sedimentary deposits of Live Oak Canyon (Qlo), San Timoteo Formation (Tstm), and residuum and/or pedogenic-soil profile developed from those sediments (Qvors). Particularly, the San Timoteo Formation is known to be highly fossiliferous, with specimens of mastodon, horse, camel, antelope, dog, bear, rodent, and rabbit reported in the general vicinity of the project site. Figure 2.2.4-1, Geologic Units within the Project Vicinity, shows the stratigraphy and geological unit structure of the project vicinity and its surroundings.
Sedimentary Deposits of Live Oak Canyon and San Timoteo Formation The unit Qlo consists of unconsolidated and consolidated nonmarine sedimentary material. The closest surface exposures of Qlo are approximately 0.4 miles northwest and southwest of the project site. The unit includes Pleistocene sedimentary deposits derived from streams that flowed from the ancestral Live Oak Canyon and Pleistocene beds referred to by the PIR/PER as the San Timoteo Formation.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 250 427
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.4-1: Geologic Units within the Project Vicinity ?^ QVof'
Legend
Crop
Qya5
0 .C�
Old alluvial fan deposits, unit 2
Young axial -valley deposits,
unit 5
Very old alluvial -valley
deposits, unit 3
1000
Feet
Map adapted from:
J . Matti, D.M. Morton, and V . Langenheim, 2015, Geologic map of the El Casco 75' quadrangle, Riverside County,
southern California: USGS Open -File Report 2010-1274, scale 1:24,000.
NOT TO SCALE
012021 16169171
Qya5
• ,
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Geologic Units within the Project Vicinity
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 251 Figure 2.2.4-1
Item 9.
428
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The sedimentary deposits of Live Oak Canyon are mainly gravelly and conglomeratic material interbedded with sandy sediment and rocks, with some beds of muddy sediment and mudrock. While no surface exposures of unit Qlo are mapped in the project area, the nearby mapped outcrops are indications this unit may be present at unknown depths in the subsurface of the project area. There is no paleontological information available for the sedimentary deposits from Live Oak Canyon, although the finer -grained beds may be lithologically suitable for preserving fossils. The San Timoteo Formation —particularly the middle member —dominates the geology of the San Timoteo Badlands approximately 2 miles west-southwest of the project area as well as the more elevated terrain 0.8 -mile northeast of the project area. This geologic formation consists of sandstones and conglomerates with clasts derived from crystalline rocks of the Transverse Ranges to the north.
The upper member consists of distinctly yellowish -gray sandstones with very fine- to coarse -grained beds that alternate with light gray, pale yellow, and light yellowish -brown pebbly- to cobbly- gravel -rich beds.
The San Timoteo Formation is known to be highly fossiliferous, with specimens of mastodon, horse, camel, antelope, dog, bear, rodent, and rabbit reported in the general vicinity including the San Timoteo Badlands. According to the PIR/PER, late Pliocene to early Pleistocene fauna have been recovered by investigators from the upper member (Qstu) deposits and early Pleistocene fauna have been recorded in the quartzite -bearing conglomerate beds (Qstcq).
According to the PIR/PER, the middle member of the San Timoteo Formation ranges in age from early Pliocene to early Pleistocene.
Very Old Residuum and/or Pedogenic Soil
Unit Qvors is mapped in close association with unit Qlo approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project area. The unit is early to middle Pleistocene in age and consists of the reddish residuum and/or pedogenic-soil profile developed from weathering an old Quaternary landscape of the sedimentary deposits of Live Oak Canyon or the San Timoteo Formation.As with unit Qlo, this unit may be present at unknown depths in the subsurface of the project area. No paleontological information is available for this specific unit, although soil developed from fossiliferous beds of the San Timoteo Formation likely will still preserve fossils. Pleistocene and older paleosols such as these have yielded abundant significant vertebrate fossils elsewhere in Riverside County.
Alluvial -Fan Deposits
Two alluvial -fan units are mapped in the project area. Unit Qvofe is mapped in and around the northwest terminus of the project area and in the short segment of Tukwet Canyon Parkway that is perpendicular to the southwest side of 1-10. These deposits consist of moderately consolidated, middle Pleistocene sands and gravels comprising the 3rd unit in the very old alluvial - fan series of the region (Qvof).
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 252 429
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As mapped in Figure 2.2.4-1, unit Qof2 covers the majority of the project area. Unit Qof2 extends from the southeast terminus of the project area northward along both sides of 1-10 to the north side of the Interchange, comprises the eastern terminus of the Cherry Valley Boulevard portion of the project area as well as the proposed on -ramps under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and crosses a small portion of the 1-10 corridor near the northwest terminus of the project area. This unit is the middle to late Pleistocene, 2nd unit of the old alluvial -fan series (Qof), consisting of moderately consolidated, brownish sandy, gravelly, and silty sediment deposited by streams that formed alluvial - fan landforms. According to the PIR/PER, Pleistocene -age alluvial deposits such as units Qvof3 and Qof2 have been demonstrated to be highly fossiliferous elsewhere in Riverside County. Significant fossils reported from such alluvial deposits include mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, sabre-toothed cats, large and small horses, large and small camels, and bison, as well as plant macro- and microfossils.
Axial -Valley Deposits
Unit Qya5 covers most of the northeast side of the interchange and most of the 1-10 corridor in the project area northwest of the interchange. These latest Holocene (recent) deposits comprise the 5th unit and youngest of the young axial -valley series (Qya) and consist of moderately consolidated sandy, muddy, and gravelly sediment deposited by through -going streams of axial valleys. The unit is mapped also as Qya5 in Figure 2.2.4-1. Holocene -age alluvial deposits less than 5,000 years old such as unit Qya5 generally are too young to preserve significant fossils, though they may shallowly overlie older deposits that preserve them.
Wash Deposits
Two wash deposit units are mapped in the project area. These latest Holocene units of the very young wash series (Qvyw) include very slightly to slightly consolidated sands and gravels that were recently transported and deposited in active channels and washes, on surfaces of alluvial fans and alluvial plains, in ephemeral lakes, and on hillslopes. Unit Qvyw2 occurs in local channels that cross beneath 1-10 at the northwest terminus of the project area.
Unit Qvywm7 is the youngest Qvyw series and occurs just northwest of the interchange near Calimesa Boulevard as well as in active channels beneath 1- 10 near the northwest terminus of the project area. As with other Holocene deposits less than 5,000 years old, this unit is unlikely to preserve significant fossils, but may shallowly overlie older fossiliferous deposits.
Paleontological Records
The PIR/PER included searches of museum repositories for fossil localities within and near the project area. The analysis included a search of vertebrate paleontology records maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC). As the NHMLAC paleontology records are divided into vertebrate and invertebrate collections, only the vertebrate Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 253 430
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures paleontology records were searched rather than both collections, because geologic units near the project area are more conducive to the preservation of vertebrate fossils than significant invertebrate fossils. The PIR/PER also utilized records search results conducted for other projects in the vicinity to supplement the records search conducted with NHMLAC. Lastly, the PIR/PER included searches of two online databases: the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) and the online database of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), which list locality records from across California for all types of fossilized biota and traces.
The results of the records search for the project did not indicate any recorded fossil localities within the project area. However, the NHMLAC records search indicated two nearby localities from older Quaternary alluvial units similar to those in the project area. The closer locality is LACM 4540, south-southwest of the project area on the northeastern side of the San Jacinto Valley and just west of Jack Rabbit Trail. This locality yielded a specimen of fossil horse (Equus) from an undisclosed context (i.e., surface or subsurface). The other locality, LACM 7811, which is northwest of the project area —north of Norco and west of Mira Loma in the Jurupa Valley —yielded a specimen of coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) from a depth of 9 to 11 feet bgs.
A review of records search results from other projects in the vicinity included additional resources, including several localities from the San Timoteo Formation of the San Timoteo Badlands north and south of State Route 60, at least 2 miles west-southwest of the project area (Equus and camel [Camelidae]) from unknown depths; one locality along Calimesa Boulevard approximately 4.5 miles south of the Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Project (Equus) from an unknown depth in Pleistocene -age deposits; one locality of Rancholabrean fauna from Pleistocene -age alluvial deposits in the City of Beaumont and several localities from the upper San Timoteo Formation of the San Timoteo Badlands (bison [Bison antiquus] and mammalian taxa).
Survey Results
In support of the PIR/PER, a site field survey of the project study area was completed on June 9, 2020. No paleontological resources were encountered on the ground surface of the project area during the site reconnaissance. As part of the field survey, there were observations of possible deposits of Live Oak Canyon and/or upper San Timoteo Formation (Qlo; Qstu), the very old alluvial -fan deposits (Qvof3), old alluvial -fan deposits (Qof2), and young axial - valley deposits (Qya5). Very old residuum and (or) pedogenic soils (Qvors) were not observed. Very young wash deposits (Qvyw2, Qvywm) are mapped in drainage channels that are currently concrete -lined, and, consequently, they also were not observed.
Paleontological Sensitivity
Paleontological resources are considered significant if they are identifiable vertebrate fossils, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils that Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 254 431
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures provide new data on classification, preservation, distribution, evolution, or other scientifically important information. Knowledge of the geological units gleaned from desktop records searches, published and unpublished literature and map reviews, and field surveys are the basis for determining the paleontological sensitivity of projects. Caltrans utilizes a tripartite scale to determine and characterize paleontological sensitivity. According to the Caltrans SER Environmental Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 8, the scale utilizes baseline information gathered during the paleontological resource assessment to assign each geologic unit one of three categories: High Potential, Low Potential, and No Potential. According to the PIR/PER, the Riverside County General Plan also includes sensitivity criteria and guidelines for mitigation of paleontological resources. Their sensitivity categories include High A (Ha), High B (Hb), Low, and Undetermined Potential. The sensitivity category of the Riverside County General Plan can be comparable to the Caltrans set of paleontological sensitivity goals. Ha and Hb are reportedly roughly equivalent to High Potential for Caltrans, and the Low Potential is comparable to Low Potential and No Potential for Caltrans. Table 2.2.4-1, Paleontology Sensitivity Scale, provides a comparison of the Caltrans and County classification systems.
Table 2.2.4-1: Paleontology Sensitivity Scale (Caltrans) Item 9.
Sensitivity/Potential
Criteria
High
Sedimentary rock units for which significant vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered anywhere in their extent; or if the units are temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of significant fossils.
Low
Rock units for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrate as having a low potential for containing significant fossils.
No Potential
Rock units of intrusive igneous origin, most extrusive igneous rocks, and moderately to highly metamorphosed rocks are classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources. For projects encountering only these types of rock units, paleontological resources can generally be eliminated as a concern when the Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) is prepared and no further action taken.
Source: Applied EarthWorks Inc., Combined Paleontological Identification Report — Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR-PER) for the Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California, August 2020.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 255 432
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.4-2: Paleontology Sensitivity Scale (Riverside County) Sensitivity/Potential
Criteria
High A
High B
Sedimentary rock units for which significant vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered anywhere in their extent; or if the units are temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of significant fossils.
Undetermined
Sedimentary rocks for which literature or unpublished studies are not available.
These rocks need to be inspected by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist before a specific determination of high potential or low potential can be assigned.
Low
Rock units for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrate as having a low potential for containing significant fossils.
Source: Applied EarthWorks Inc., Combined Paleontological Identification Report — Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR-PER) for the Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California, August 2020.
The PIR/PER assigned sensitivity rankings in accordance with Caltrans tripartite scale. The delineations are based on a combination of three factors:
1) resource potential of geologic units found at the ground surface; 2) resource potential of geologic units thought to be present at unknown depths; and 3) likelihood of encountering those subsurface geologic units.
The PIR/PER assigns a High Potential ranking to several portions of the project area where very old alluvial -fan deposits (Qvof3) and old alluvial -fan deposits (Qof2) are mapped at the ground surface as these units are potentially fossiliferous in the finer -grained beds. The PIR/PER also includes within the High Potential subareas portions of the project area near the interchange where the young axial -valley deposits (Qya5) are mapped, as observations from the survey indicate these deposits, at least in this subarea, may shallowly overlie the old alluvial -fan deposits (Qof2). In addition, data within the PIR/PER indicates the presence of deposits consistent with the Live Oak Canyon (Qlo) unit and/or upper San Timoteo Formation at a depth of 29 feet bgs near the center of the interchange.
Unit Qlo also may be present at shallower depths farther to the southwest of the site near Roberts Road. The PIR/PER notes an abundance of fossil localities within three miles of the project area, mostly from the San Timoteo Formation. This formation likely is also present at unknown depths in and around the interchange in the project area, and could be impacted by project - related ground -disturbing activities, which are anticipated to reach 12 to 25 feet bgs.
The PIR/PER assigns a Low Potential ranking to all other portions of the project area where unit Qya5 is mapped because of the comparatively young age. However, the stratigraphic relations with other units were not evident outside the subarea immediately surrounding the interchange.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 256 433
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Environmental Consequences
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, no project construction would occur and, therefore, no impact on paleontological resources would occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
The construction phase of the project will require temporary ground - disturbance of the project site. While there are no known, recorded paleontological resources within the project boundaries, the project area consists of surficial and subsurface geologic units ranked as low to high in potential for buried fossil. As a result, ground -disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Build Alternatives could result in the disturbance or loss of previously undiscovered paleontological resources.
Since this may occur, worker's environmental awareness training and on -site construction monitoring would be required, as described in Measures PAL -1 and PAL -2 below. Mitigation Measure PAL -2 would additionally require retainment of a qualified Principal Paleontologist, and the implementation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for the project. If paleontological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, fossil preparation, curation, and reporting would occur in accordance with Measure PAL -3. With the implementation of these Measures, the Build Alternatives would not result in any significantly adverse effects to significant paleontological resources.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
PAL -1 Prior to the start of construction, all field personnel shall be briefed during a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) regarding the types of fossils that could be found in the project area and the procedures to follow shall paleontological resources be encountered. This training shall be accomplished first at the preconstruction kick-off meeting by a Principal Paleontologist who meets the Caltrans qualifications standards or his/her qualified and supervised representative. The training shall be developed by the Principal Paleontologist and may be conducted concurrently with other environmental training (e.g., biological, cultural, and natural resources awareness training, safety training, etc.).
Specifically, the training will provide brochure handouts with descriptions of the fossil resources that may be encountered in the project area, outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Principal Paleontologist and on -site paleontological monitor(s). A project -specific sign -in sheet will be utilized to illustrate that all construction personnel have completed the WEAP training prior to the start of construction for CEQA compliance. Extra sign -in Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 257 434
PAL -2
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures sheets and brochures would be left with the construction contractor for distribution and WEAP training of future construction personnel as they are added to the project. If possible, the original WEAP training should be recorded on video for future use as additional construction personnel are added to the project.
Prior to the commencement of ground -disturbing activities, a Principal Paleontologist who meets the Caltrans qualification standards shall be retained to prepare and implement a
Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for the project. The project's PMP shall develop mitigation measures based on the assigned sensitivity rankings as well as the proposed depths of ground disturbance throughout the project area, as surface and near -surface geologic units are well documented while geologic units at greater depths remain undocumented. Depending on the proposed project's excavation depths, the type of monitoring shall be one of the following:
• For areas categorized as High Potential: Full-time monitoring shall be required for disturbance at all depths in selected areas with intact sediments. In subareas of High Potential, monitoring efforts shall be reduced or eliminated at the discretion of the Principal Paleontologist if no fossil resources are encountered after 50 percent of the excavations are completed.
• For areas categorized as Low Potential: Spot-check
monitoring is recommended for disturbance in particular areas at four feet or greater below group surface (bgs) in intact sediments. If High Potential geologic units are encountered at depth in those particular locations during spot-check
monitoring, those subareas shall be elevated to High Potential and monitoring shall be upgraded to full-time.
Monitoring shall not be required for excavations less than four feet bgs in subareas with Low Potential or within any subareas with artificial fill. Although monitoring is not typically required in subareas of Low Potential, spot-check monitoring shall be implemented at the discretion of the Principal Paleontologist to confirm the presence of subsurface High Potential geologic units. In particular, deeper excavations of approximately 12 to 25 feet bgs for items such as bridge abutments, bent footings, and overhead sign foundations shall be spot-checked, as these construction activities may impact High Potential geologic units at depth.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 258 435
PAL -3
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures All monitoring shall include the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas, trench sidewalls, spoils, and any other disturbed sediment. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, either the Principal Paleontologist or approved on - site paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected.
Additionally, test samples of sediments from geologic units with High Potential shall be collected and screened on site to determine the presence of fossils in the small grain -size fractions. If significant small -fraction fossils are discovered during the test sampling, larger bulk samples of sediments may be collected for further processing in the laboratory. The recommended sampling shall follow best practice procedures in mitigation paleontology.
If fossils are encountered during construction monitoring, significant fossils shall be collected and prepared in a properly equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for curation.
Preparation shall include the careful removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Following laboratory work, all fossil specimens shall be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, cataloged, analyzed, and prepared for curation. Assuming landowners concur and will sign a Deed of Gift Form, fossil specimens shall be submitted for permanent curation in a museum repository approved by Caltrans. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the landowners. At the conclusion of laboratory work and curation, the paleontological contractor shall prepare a final report to describe the results of the paleontological monitoring. The report shall include an overview of the project area geology and paleontology, a description of the field and laboratory methods, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. If fossils will be donated for permanent curation, a copy of the report shall be submitted to the curation institution along with the fossil assemblage.
2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials
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.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 259 436
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as "Superfund," is to identify and cleanup abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for "cradle to grave" regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include:
• Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992 • Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
• Atomic Energy Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order (EO) 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.
California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the CA Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA in the state. California law also addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act also restricts disposal of wastes and requires 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 cleanup of contamination include Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, Title 23 Waters, and Title 27 Environmental Protection.
Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment.
Proper management and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 260 437
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Environment
This section is based on the Phase I Initial Site Assessment for the I- 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (Phase 1 ISA) (dated December 2020).
Field Survey and Research Methodology
Records Review: An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) records search of federal and state environmental databases, for sites within the project site and within an approximate one -mile radius of the project site boundaries, was received on February 26, 2019 and the results were incorporated into the Phase 1 ISA.
Historical Research: The standard sources identified by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13 include aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, property tax files, recorded land title records (a chain -of - title), historical USGS topographic maps, local street directories, building department records, zoning/land use records, prior assessments, and other historical sources (i.e., any source or sources, other than those listed, that are credible to a reasonable person and that identify past uses of the property).
The focus is on usage rather than ownership, which is why a chain -of -title is not sufficient by itself. As part of the Phase 1 ISA, historical topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, the City of Calimesa Zoning Map, and certified Sanborn maps were reviewed. Historical information for the project site was obtained back to 1901, at which time the project site consisted of vacant land and transportation uses.
The Phase! ISA acknowledged that specific property land use information of the project site within a five-year interval, from 1901 to 1938, was unobtainable. According to the Phase 1 Site Assessment, transportation uses (i.e., 1-10, Roberts Road, and Cherry Valley Boulevard) and orchards appear on -site during this time. There were no other indicators of potential hazardous materials were noted in relation to these uses. No other substantial development or changes occurred at the project site. No evidence of other uses during this time were noted for the surrounding area. According to the Phase 1 ISA, the project site had consisted of vacant land transportation uses since prior to 1901. Agricultural uses and rural development in the general vicinity of the subject site began in the 1930s and 1940s, while residential development in the surrounding vicinity of the subject site appeared to have occurred from the 1960s to current day. No other conditions were encountered that limited the historical use review during the course of the Phase 1 ISA.
Site Reconnaissance: On June 9, 2020, an on -site visit was conducted and consisted of a visual observation of readily accessible areas of the subject site and immediately adjoining properties. The subject site was viewed from all publicly accessible thoroughfares. If roads or paths with no apparent outlet are observed on the subject site, the use of the road or path was identified to Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 261 438
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures determine whether it was likely to have been used as an avenue for disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products.
According to the Phase I ISA, limiting conditions related to site reconnaissance included that there were no clear views of the ground surface/bare soils nor the interior of on -site structures.
Interviews: The Phase I ISA identified the key site manager as the Project Engineer, who provided a range of information related to project design, utilities, and property ownership associated with the project. As part of the Phase I ISA, an Engineering Technician at the Yucaipa Valley Water District was contacted regarding sewer connections within the project site, and the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency was contacted to confirm the zoning and land use designations of the properties proposed for ROW acquisition. Due to the nature of the proposed project, no interviews were conducted with the occupants residing in the rural residential uses proposed for ROW acquisition. Based on the historical documentation reviewed, the Phase I ISA determined that these interviews would not increase the knowledge of the Environmental Professional such that the conclusions of this Phase I ISA would change. Thus, the Phase I ISA determined that this deviation is not a significant data gap in the analysis.
Results of the Phase I Initial Site Assessment
The records search conducted as part of the Phase I ISA reported one spill site within the boundaries of the subject site. This spill was reported in 1988, and the type of contaminant, amount, and containment status were not reported. This past spill is anticipated to be associated with a petroleum spill that may have occurred during an automobile accident. Thus, the incident is anticipated to have been minor in nature and occurred more than 25 years ago. Therefore, based on the Phase I ISA this spill is de minimis in nature and has not resulted in a recognized environmental condition (REC).
The lists identified eight off -site regulatory properties within a one -mile radius of the subject site. Five of the eight sites were reported adjoining the project site; refer to Table 2.2.5-1, Regulatory Properties of Concern.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 262 439
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.5-1: Regulatory Properties of Concern
Site Name/Address
Direction from Subject
Site
EDR Site Status
Luther's Truck & Equipment,
Inc.
36233 Cherry Valley
Boulevard. Cherry Valley,
CA 92223
(also identified as 36243
Cherry Valley Boulevard.,
Cherry Valley, CA 92223)
Adjoining subject site to
south/east
Reported in AST and
HAULERS database. HAZNET
waste categories include other
organic solids; unspecified oil -
containing waste. Disposal
methods include metals
recovery including retoring,
smelting, chemicals, etc.;
storage, bulking, and/or transfer
off site — no treatment recovery;
and transfer station. Listed in
FINDS database. *HAZNET
waste categories include other
organic solids; latex waste.
Disposal methods include
recycler; transfer station.
1-10 W/O Cherry Valley
Boulevard. Calimesa, CA
Subject Site
Reported spill in 1988 listed in
CHMIRS database.
Stokes Ranch 10410
Roberts Road Calimesa, CA
92320
Adjoining subject site to
west
One diesel tank listed in HIST
UST database
Suzy Lynn Ranch 10701
Desert Lawn Drive Calimesa,
CA 92320
Adjoining subject site to
south
One regular tank listed in HIST
UST database
Plantation on the Lake
10961 Desert Lawn Drive
Calimesa, CA 92320
Adjoining subject site to
south
Reported spill in 2013 listed in
CHMIRS database. Liquid
mercury was spilled in a
residential garage, contained
by CALFire, and cleaned up by
contractor. Listed in Cortese
database. Listed in CIWQS in
1984, terminated in 2001.
Source: Michael Baker International, Phase I Initial Site Assessment I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, December 2020.
The remaining three of the eight sites were noted as off -site regulatory properties of concern within a one -mile radius of the subject site. The reported adjacent regulatory properties are considered to have a low potential of affecting the project site, due to the distance, anticipated groundwater flow direction, and/or the status of the identified sites.
Current On -Site Uses
Agricultural Uses
Based on the site visit on June 9, 2020 as part of the Phase I ISA, agricultural uses were noted on the eastern portion of the subject site. Current uses consist of fallow, irrigated land. No maintenance facilities or structures relating to current agricultural uses were observed within the subject site. No evidence of current pesticide storage was observed on -site. As the current agricultural uses consist of fallow land and no on -site storage practices were Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 263 440
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures observed, the Phase I ISA indicated that current agricultural uses have not resulted in a REC.
Transportation Uses and Utilities
Traffic Striping Material
Lead based paints (LBPs) were commonly used in traffic striping materials before the discontinued use of lead chromate pigment in traffic striping/marking materials and hot -melt Thermoplastic stripe materials (discontinued in 1996 and 2004, respectively). Traffic striping was observed along 1-10, Cherry Valley Boulevard, Tukwet Canyon Parkway, Calimesa Boulevard, and Roberts Road. All roadways within the boundaries of the subject site were constructed prior to 1967, with the exception of the Cherry Valley Boulevard extension constructed in 2006 (i.e. Tukwet Canyon Parkway). Although roadways have likely been restriped since 1967, LBPs may still be associated with most traffic striping materials on -site. Traffic striping materials appeared to be intact and did not appear to be released into the environment, including on -site bare soils. Thus, based on the Phase I ISA, no REC has resulted.
Asbestos -Containing Materials and Lead Based Paint
ACMs and LBPs are commonly known to be used in building materials for bridge structures. The project proposes modification to the existing Cherry Valley Boulevard Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56-0481), constructed by 1965.
Based on site reconnaissance, the bridge structures appeared to be in fair condition and no evidence of ACMs and LBPs being released into the environment was noted. Notwithstanding, the project proposes modification of this bridge structure and could expose ACMs/LBPs during construction. Thus, the Phase I ISA indicates that ACMs and LBPs in the bridge structures have not resulted in a REC, but presents an environmental concern during construction. As such, ACMs and LBPs sampling was conducted for the bridge/overcrossing. Based on the Phase I ISA, ACMs (defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] as an ACM of 1.0 percent or higher) were detected in bolt mastic (7 percent chrysotile asbestos) and shim pads (55 to 60 percent chrysotile asbestos), both located on the metal guard rail support posts on the bridge (Number 56-0481).
A total of six bulk samples of paint were also collected from the roadway and bridge. Although LBPs were detected in samples taken, all samples were below the EPA's threshold of 5,000 parts per million (ppm).
Treated Wood Waste
Treated wood waste comes from old wood that has been treated with chemical preservatives. These chemicals help protect the wood from insect attack and fungal decay during use. Fence posts, sill plates, landscape timbers, pilings, guardrails, and decking, to name a few, are all examples of chemically treated wood. Treated wood waste contains hazardous chemicals that pose a risk to human health and the environment. Arsenic, chromium, Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 264 441
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures copper, creosote, and pentachlorophenol are among the chemicals used to preserve wood and are known to be toxic or carcinogenic. Harmful exposure to these chemicals may result from touching, inhaling or ingesting treated wood waste particulate (e.g., sawdust and smoke).
Treated wood may be present in association with power poles, sign posts, and guard rails particularly along on- and off -ramps, Cherry Valley Boulevard, Tukwet Canyon Parkway, Calimesa Boulevard, and Roberts Road. Based on the Phase 1 ISA, treated wood has not resulted in a REC.
Pad -Mounted Transformers
One pad -mounted transformer along Cherry Valley Boulevard was noted during the site reconnaissance for the Phase 1 Site Assessment.
Transformers have the potential to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
No evidence of dielectric fluid or staining was noted on -site. As such, the on - site transformer did not result in a REC in this regard.
Natural Gas Pipelines
According to the Phase 1 ISA, a natural gas high pressure distribution pipeline is located along Calimesa Boulevard, Roberts Road, and transects 1-10 within the boundaries of the subject site. The pipelines, however, are not situated within the proposed areas of excavation. As such, they do not pose as REC in this regard.
Commercial Uses
Based on the June 9, 2020 site inspection conducted as part of the Phase I ISA, portions of a commercial use (The Marketplace at Calimesa; APN 413- 780-018) is proposed for a temporary construction easement (TCE).
However, the TCE area is comprised of ornamental landscaping and was constructed in 2020. During a preliminary observation of the TCE area from public thoroughfares, no visible or physical evidence was observed to suggest that a surface release of hazardous materials has recently occurred. Further, this current commercial use has not been under investigation for violation on any environmental laws, regulations, or standards, as identified in the databases reported by EDR. As such, no REC has resulted in this regard.
Residential Uses
Based on Phase 1 ISA, residential areas of the subject site associated with ROW acquisition have not been reported in any regulatory databases. No evidence of hazardous materials was observed during the June 9, 2020 site visit. As these properties have not reported a release of hazardous materials to the environment, the Phase 1 ISA indicates that they have not resulted in a REC.
The residences appear to have been constructed sometime prior to 1978 and may be associated with ACMs and LBPs (APN 413-270-014 and 407-230- 017). The Phase 1 ISA indicates that observed evidence of flaking and peeling Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 265 442
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures that would suggest a release of ACMs and LBPs to on -site soils has resulted.
Further, debris piles that appear to be associated with rural residential building and foundation remnants were also noted (APN 407-230-017). Thus, the Phase! ISA indicates that potential ACMs and LBPs in building materials that have released to on -site soils presents a REC.
It is noted that excavation activities could disturb septic systems and leach fields located within the subject site. Based on interviews with the Yucaipa Valley Water District, the residential property located at 3607 Cherry Valley Boulevard (APN 413-270-014) is not connected to the local sewer system, and is likely using septic systems and leach fields for sewage disposal. It is possible that the septic tanks and leach fields are located within the boundaries of the subject site. As this existing residential use is not anticipated to handle/store hazardous materials/substances, the Phase 1 ISA concluded that the existing on -site septic systems have not resulted in a REC.
Aboveground Storage Tank
A small diesel Above Storage Tank (AST) was observed within the boundaries of APN 413-270-014 during the on -site visit. The Phase 1 ISA anticipates that this AST may have been used for a backup generator. There are no available reports of the handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials nor has this property reported any releases to the environment.
When observed during the site reconnaissance, the AST appeared to be in poor condition. It was not possible to view areas of bare soils within in the vicinity of the AST due to the presence of high vegetation. As such, there is potential for diesel contamination to exist within areas of bare soils beneath the AST, and a REC has resulted in this regard.
Past On -Site Uses
Aerially Deposited Lead
Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) refers to lead deposited on older roadway shoulders from past leaded fuel vehicle emissions. According to the Phase 1 ISA, lead was banned as a fuel additive in California beginning in 1992. Thus, ADL may be present in soils adjacent to highways/roadways in use prior to that time.
According to historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, the project site appears to have consisted of transportation, agricultural, rural residential, and vacant land uses since prior to 1992. 1-10 was developed as a dual highway between 1943 and 1953. Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road were developed and improved as secondary highways prior to 1942.
Calimesa Boulevard was improved prior to 1967, and Tukwet Canyon Parkway was developed after 1996. Although most of the on -site roads appeared to be rural in nature and were not heavily traveled, by 1953, the 1- 10 was constructed and then heavily used since. Therefore, the potential for lead contamination exists within soils along 1-10 due to ADL. As such, ADL sampling was conducted for the proposed project on September 18, 2020.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 266 443
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on the Phase I ISA, it was determined that soil sampling results were less than the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) health -risk based screening level for unrestricted land use of 80 mg/kg. However, three of the soil samples exceeded the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC; CA -WET) lead threshold of 5 milligrams/liter (mg/L). As such, the Phase I ISA indicates that ADL has resulted in a REC.
Agricultural Uses
Based on the Phase I ISA, the western portion of the subject site appears to have historically consisted of agricultural uses (i.e. orchards). The agriculture use dates back to at least 1938. Therefore, a combination of several commonly used pesticides (i.e., dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane [DDD], dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE]), which are now banned, may have been used throughout the subject site. The historical and current use of agricultural pesticides may have resulted in pesticide residues of certain persistence in soil concentrations that are considered to be hazardous based on established federal regulatory levels. The primary concern with historical pesticide residues is human health from inadvertent ingestion of contaminated soil, particularly by children. The presence of moderately elevated pesticide residuals in soil presents potential health and marketplace concerns.
Based on historical aerial photographs, the agricultural barn structure on APN 413-270-104 was developed by 1967. During the June 9, 2020 site visit, the agricultural barn structure was observed, as well as associated agriculture structures and equipment. Due to the depilated and collapsed condition of the barn structure, the interior of the barn structure was not inspected, nor were the interiors of the associated agricultural structures. Additionally, miscellaneous debris were observed throughout areas of the project site associated with agricultural uses.
It is typical for agriculture uses to include gasoline or diesel underground storage tanks (USTs) (from the 1940s through the 1980s). Until the mid - 1980s most USTs were made of bare steel, which is likely to corrode over time and allow UST contents to seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater. With the exception of the historical agricultural use, no evidence documenting the presence/removal of any USTs was noted. However, since the project site consisted of agriculture uses prior to 1938 and the likelihood that a UST was used on -site, the Phase I ISA indicated that a UST may be present on the project site. Given the time the UST may have been installed (1930s — 1980s), it is likely that a UST(s), if present, is a single -walled steel tank. Thus, the Phase I ISA concluded that this potential undocumented UST represents a REC at this time.
As the project site was historically used for agriculture (particularly between the 1930's and 1980's), it is likely that pesticides/herbicides were historically used. Therefore, the Phase I ISA concluded that residual herbicide/pesticide Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 267 444
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures contamination may be present in on -site surface soils and within the structures associated with past agricultural uses. As such, a REC has resulted in this regard.
Residential Uses
Based on the Phase 1 ISA, one small structure (that appeared to be associated with a rural residential use; APN 407-230-018) was present sometime prior to 1985, until sometime prior to 1989, when the structure was demolished. Since 1989, the APN 407-230-018 has consisted of vacant land.
No indicators of potential hazardous materials were noted in relation to this use. Additionally, this use was not reported as a regulatory property.
Therefore, the Phase 1 ISA concluded that this past residential use has not resulted in a REC.
Past On -Site Spills
As noted above, the records search conducted as part of the Phase I ISA reported one spill site within the boundaries of the subject site. This spill was reported in 1988, and the type of contaminant, amount, and containment status were not reported. This past spill is anticipated to be associated with a petroleum spill that may have occurred during an automobile accident. Thus, the incident is anticipated to have been minor in nature and occurred more than 25 years ago. Therefore, based on the Phase 1 ISA this spill is de minimis in nature and has not resulted in a REC.
Current Adjoining Uses
Plantation on the Lake
This property (adjoining the subject site to the south) is currently occupied by Plantation on the Lake mobile homes. Based on the Phase! ISA, a liquid mercury spill occurred in 2013 in a residential garage. The spill was contained by CALFire and cleaned up by a contractor. The property is listed in the Cortese database for Cease Desist Orders and Cleanup Abatement Orders related to municipal/domestic uses. Based on the information reviewed as part of this Phase! ISA, this off -site release (reported on concrete) has not resulted in a release on the project site. No REC has resulted from this current adjoining property.
Luther's Truck and Equipment, Inc.
This property (adjoining the subject site to the east, north of 1-10) is occupied by Luther's Truck & Equipment, Inc., an automotive repair service facility. An AST with secondary containment was observed from the adjoining property to the east during the June 9, 2020 site visit. No staining or leaking was observed with respect to off -site AST during the site visit. Luther's Truck & Equipment, Inc. was listed in Phase 1 ISA for the handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials. However, no releases to soil, soil gas, or groundwater were reported. As this property is situated off -site and no releases have been reported, the Phase! ISA indicated that no REC has resulted from this current adjoining property.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 268 445
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Past Adjoining Uses
Residential Uses
Past adjoining residential uses were noted during the review of historical documentation. Residential uses are not typically associated with the handling/storage or transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Phase I ISA noted that the past adjoining residential uses have not resulted in a REC.
Agricultural/Ranching Uses
Based on the evaluation of the documented land use (as demonstrated in the resources reviewed as part of this Phase I ISA), adjoining uses to the east of the subject site appear to have been historically utilized for agricultural purposes in the 1950s and 1960s and adjoining uses to the south of the subject site appear to have been historically utilized for agricultural/ranching purposes in the 1970s. As adjoining uses were historically used for agriculture/ranching, it is likely that pesticides/herbicides were historically used. However, historical pesticides/herbicides as a result of these adjoining historical agricultural uses are located off -site and are not anticipated to have impacted on -site surface soils. Thus, the presence of residual herbicide/ pesticide contamination in on -site surface soils as a result of the past adjoining agricultural uses is unlikely and no REC has resulted in this regard.
Historical Off -Site USTs
The following uses have reported historical USTs and adjoined the subject site:
• 10410 Roberts Road (Stokes Ranch); and
• 10701 Desert Lawn Drive (Suzy Lynn Ranch).
These past adjoining uses have not reported the handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials nor has these properties reported any releases to the environment. During a preliminary observation of on -site properties from public thoroughfares, no visible or physical evidence was observed to suggest that a surface release of petroleum -based material has recently occurred. No unusual or suspicious materials handling or storage practices were observed with respect to on -site properties. These past uses have not been under investigation for violation on any environmental laws, regulations, or standards, as identified in the databases reported in the Phase I ISA.
These properties are located off -site and no releases have been reported.
Thus, the Phase I ISA indicated that no REC has resulted.
Current and Past Adjacent Uses
Although the records search from the Phase I ISA identified three off -site regulatory properties within one mile radius of the subject site, these properties do not present a potential concern to groundwater underlying the subject site. The reported adjacent regulatory properties are considered to have a low potential of affecting the subject site, due to the distance, Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 269 446
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures anticipated groundwater flow direction, and/or status of the identified sites.
Thus, the Phase! ISA indicates that current and past adjacent properties have not resulted in a REC.
Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
No improvements to the I-10/Cherry Boulevard would occur under the No - Build Alternative and, therefore, it would not result in temporary adverse effects related to hazardous waste and materials.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Traffic Striping Material
As noted above, traffic striping was observed along 1-10, Cherry Valley Boulevard, Tukwet Canyon Parkway, Calimesa Boulevard, and Roberts Road. All roadways within the boundaries of the subject site were constructed prior to 1967, with the exception of the Cherry Valley Boulevard extension constructed in 2006 (i.e. Tukwet Canyon Parkway). Although roadways have likely been restriped since 1967, LBPs may still be associated with most traffic striping materials on -site. Traffic striping materials appeared to be intact and did not appear to be released into the environment, including on -site bare soils. However, as the project proposes disturbance of on -site traffic striping materials, demolition of these materials presents an environmental concern.
The contractor would be required to determine the specific traffic striping/pavement marking material proposed for removal (whether it is yellow thermoplastic, yellow pavement markings, and/or non -yellow pavement markings) prior to disturbance. Disturbance and disposal of these materials would be required to follow Caltrans Standard Special Provisions (SSPs) 84-
9.03C, 14-11.12, and 36-4. Upon adherence to these SSPs, adverse effects in this regard would not occur.
Asbestos -Containing Materials and Lead Based Paint
As noted previously, the project proposes modification to the existing Cherry Valley Boulevard Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56-0481), constructed by 1965.
Based on site reconnaissance, the bridge structures appeared to be in fair condition and no evidence of ACMs and LBPs being released into the environment was noted. Notwithstanding, the project proposes modification of this bridge structure and could expose ACMs/LBPs during construction. Thus, the Phase 1 ISA indicates that ACMs and LBPs in the bridge structures have not resulted in a REC, but presents an environmental concern during construction. As such, ACMs and LBPs sampling was conducted for the bridge/overcrossing. Based on the Phase 1 ISA, ACMs (defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] as an ACM of 1.0 percent or higher) were detected in bolt mastic (7 percent chrysotile asbestos) and shim pads (55 to 60 percent chrysotile asbestos), both located on the metal guard rail support posts on the bridge (Number 56-0481). As such, Measure HAZ-1 has Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 270 447
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures been incorporated to ensure that adverse effects related to ACMs do not occur.
A total of six bulk samples of paint were also collected from the roadway and bridge. Although LBPs were detected in samples taken, all samples were below the EPA's threshold of 5,000 parts per million (ppm). As some of the paint contains minimal amounts of lead, Title 8 CCR 1532.1 (Lead) may require workers that perform either manual demolition, manual scraping or sanding of painted surfaces to undergo an exposure assessment including air monitoring of the breathing zone. As such, Measure HAZ-2 has been included regarding handling of LBPs.
In addition to ACMs and LBPs associated with the existing bridge structure, the Phase I ISA noted that several on -site residences appear to have been constructed sometime prior to 1978 and may be associated with ACMs and LBPs (APN 413-270-014 and 407-230-017). The Phase I ISA indicates that observed evidence of flaking and peeling that would suggest a release of ACMs and LBPs to on -site soils has resulted. Further, debris piles that appear to be associated with rural residential building and foundation remnants were also noted (APN 407-230-017). Thus, the Phase I ISA indicates that potential ACMs and LBPs in building materials that have released to on -site soils presents a REC. Handling and disposal of ACMs would occur in accordance with the Caltrans SSP 14-11.16. As demolition of the existing structures is proposed, Measure HAZ-4 has been incorporated, which would require that a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP), and Measure HAZ-5 would require sampling of existing building materials for ACMS and LBPs prior to site clearing activities. With implementation of these measures, adverse effects would not occur in this regard.
Treated Wood Waste
Treated wood may be present in association with power poles, sign posts, and guard rails particularly along on- and off -ramps, Cherry Valley Boulevard, Tukwet Canyon Parkway, Calimesa Boulevard, and Roberts Road. Based on the Phase I ISA, treated wood has not resulted in a REC. However, disposal of this material during construction presents and environmental concern. The disposal of treated wood waste would be required to be performed in accordance with Caltrans SSP 14-11.14. With adherence to this SSP, impacts related to treated wood waste would not be adverse.
Pad -Mounted Transformers
One pad -mounted transformer along Cherry Valley Boulevard was noted during the site reconnaissance for the Phase I Site Assessment.
Transformers have the potential to contain PCBs. No evidence of dielectric fluid or staining was noted on -site. However, based on the Phase I ISA, Measure HAZ-3 has been incorporated. This measure would require that any transformer to be relocated/removed during site construction/demolition Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 271 448
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures should be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor to identify proper handling procedures regarding PCBs. With implementation of this measure, adverse impacts would not occur in this regard.
Aboveground Storage Tanks
As noted above, a small diesel AST was observed within the boundaries of APN 413-270-014 during the on -site visit. The Phase! ISA anticipates that this AST may have been used for a backup generator. There are no available reports of the handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials nor has this property reported any releases to the environment. When observed during the site reconnaissance, the AST appeared to be in poor condition. It was not possible to view areas of bare soils within in the vicinity of the AST due to the presence of high vegetation. As such, there is potential for diesel contamination to exist within areas of bare soils beneath the AST, and a REC has resulted in this regard. To minimize impacts in this regard, the Build Alternatives will be required to implement Measure HAZ-4. As noted above, Measure HAZ-4 would require that a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist prepare an SMP to investigate and remediate potential leaks related to the on -site AST, as necessary. Adverse effects in this regard would not occur.
Aerially Deposited Lead
As discussed in the Phase 1 ISA, the potential for lead contamination exists within soils along 1-10 due to ADL. As such, ADL sampling was conducted for the proposed project on September 18, 2020. Based on the Phase 1 ISA, it was determined that soil sampling results were less than the DTSC health - risk based screening level for unrestricted land use of 80 mg/kg. However, three of the soil samples exceeded the STLC lead threshold of 5 mg/L. As such, the Phase 1 ISA indicates that ADL has resulted in a REC. As a result, the Build Alternatives would be required to implement Measure HAZ-6.
Measure HAZ-6 includes provisions regarding off -site disposal of excavated soils in the vicinity of 1-10, and safety measures for construction workers handling soil affected by ADL. With implementation of this measure, adverse effects would not occur.
Agricultural Uses
As noted above, it is typical for agriculture uses to include gasoline or diesel USTs (from the 1940s through the 1980s). Until the mid -1980s most USTs were made of bare steel, which is likely to corrode over time and allow UST contents to seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater. With the exception of the historical agricultural use, no evidence documenting the presence/removal of any USTs was noted. However, since the project site consisted of agriculture uses prior to 1938 and the likelihood that a UST was used on -site, the Phase I ISA indicated that a UST may be present on the project site. Given the time the UST may have been installed (1930s — 1980s), it is likely that a UST(s), if present, is a single -walled steel tank. Thus, the Phase! ISA concluded that this potential undocumented UST represents a REC at this time. In addition, as the project site was historically used for Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 272 449
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures agriculture (particularly between the 1930's and 1980's), it is likely that pesticides/herbicides were historically used. Therefore, the Phase I ISA concluded that residual herbicide/pesticide contamination may be present in on -site surface soils and within the structures associated with past agricultural uses. As such, a REC has resulted in this regard.
Measure HAZ-4 would require that a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist prepare an SMP to investigate and remediate potential leaks related to a potential UST and the potential for herbicides/pesticides affecting on -site soils. With implementation of this measure, adverse effects in this regard would not occur.
Based on the analysis provided above, adverse temporary effects related to hazardous materials would not occur. The potential impacts and RECs identified as part of the Phase I ISA were based upon available information as of the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase; however, the Phase I ISA recommends that additional site investigation/sampling occur as part of a Phase II/Site Characterization during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase to verify the presence or absence of identified RECs (Measure HAZ-7). Additionally, the Phase I ISA provides requirements in the event unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction (Measure HAZ-8). Thus, temporary effects in this regard would not be adverse.
Permanent Impacts
No -Build Alternative
The No -Build Alternative would not change the existing physical environment and, therefore, there would be no permanent adverse effects related to hazardous waste under this alternative. Routine maintenance activities would continue to occur under this alternative, including compliance with applicable regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Routine maintenance activities during operation of the Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would be required to follow applicable regulations with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, the operation of the Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would not result in adverse effects related to hazardous waste or materials.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 If the ACM bolt mastic or shims associated with the Cherry Valley Boulevard Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56-0481) are
impacted by construction activities, the ACMs shall be abated by a Cal/OSHA licensed asbestos abatement contractor using methods in accordance with Title 8 of California Code of Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 273 450
HAZ-2
HAZ-3
HAZ-4
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Regulations (CCR) 1529 for a Class II material using wet methods and SCAQMD Rule 1403.
As some of the paint associated with the Cherry Valley
Boulevard Overcrossing (Bridge No. 56-0481) contains minimal amounts of lead, workers that perform either manual demolition, manual scraping or sanding of painted surfaces shall undergo an exposure assessment including air monitoring of the
breathing zone pursuant to Title 8 CCR 1532.1 (Lead).
Any transformer to be relocated/removed during site
construction/ demolition should be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor to identify property -handling procedures regarding PCBs.
A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional with Phase II/Site Characterization experience during the plan, specification and estimates (PS&E) phase of the project for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 413-270- 004, 413-270-014, 413-270-015, and 407-230-17. The SMP
shall include guidelines for safety measures and soil
management in the event that soils are to be disturbed, and for handling soil during any planned earthwork activities. The SMP shall also include a decision framework and specific risk management measures for managing soil, including any soil import/export activities, in a manner protective of human health and consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.
As part of this SMP, all excavation activities shall be documented daily using digital photography. In addition, the sides and the bottom of the excavation areas of concern should be appropriately logged on scaled paper. Observed materials, including an estimate of the quantity observed, and PID and dust monitor readings shall be recorded on the Daily Field Record and/or the Direct Reading Log. Well abandonment
should be conducted in accordance with state and local laws and regulations.
The SMP shall include measures in the event that potential USTs are discovered during grading activities. The SMP should require Caltrans to contact the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Management Branch) for further guidance and oversight, if deemed necessary by the regulatory agency.
If the results of the stockpile samples show no contamination, or detected concentrations of chemicals or ACMs or LBPs in soils, Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 274 451
HAZ-5
HAZ-6
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures within acceptable regulatory limits, then the soil may be redistributed within the excavation in accordance with Caltrans SSPs 14-11.08 and 7-1.02K(6)(j) for nonhazardous soil. If soil is deemed contaminated, then it should be disposed of off -site at an approved landfill facility. Should any soils be imported or exported at an off -site location, a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist should verify that all imported/exported soils are not contaminated with hazardous materials above regulatory
thresholds. If import/export soils are determined to be contaminated above regulatory thresholds, the Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would recommend proper handling, use, and/or disposal of these soils.
The Soil Management Plan shall also document that excavation activities could disturb septic systems and leach fields that may be present. It is the opinion of Michael Baker that the location of septic tanks and leach fields should be confirmed prior to site disturbance activities. Should septic systems be present on -site, the septic system shall be properly closed/abandoned and/or removed per City of Calimesa requirements.
A Phase 11 Site Investigation Specialist shall conduct ACMs and LBPs surveys, prior to site clearing activities, for all on -site structures proposed for demolition or modification, or any on - site debris piles suspect of containing demolition debris materials that could contain ACMs or LBPs in accordance with Caltrans SSPs 14-11.08 and 7-1.02K(6)(j), respectively. If present, the Specialist shall recommend appropriate remedial measures, such as the proper removal and disposal, of the ACMs/LBPs as they are uncovered.
Soluble lead concentrations (Soluble Threshold Limit
Concentration [STLC]/CAWET), defined by U.S. EPA as lead concentrations greater than 5 milligrams/liter (mg/L), were detected in three samples along 1-10. However, extractable lead concentrations (Deionized Water Waste Extraction Test [DI - WET]) were detected below 1.5 mg/L. As a result, soils in the area of these samples may be reused on -site if buried under a pavement structure or under at least one foot of clean soil. If excavated and removed, ADL contaminated soil shall be hauled to a Class I landfill and categorized as hazardous waste (i.e.
Type Z2). DTSC shall be notified of the STLC/CA-WET soluble lead concentration exceedances. As some of the soil contains minimal amounts of lead, workers that perform either manual excavation shall undergo an exposure assessment including air monitoring of the breathing zone pursuant to Title 8 CCR 1532.1 (Lead).
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 275 452
HAZ-7
HAZ-8
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Additional Site Investigation (SI)/sampling shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional with Phase II/Site Characterization experience during the plan, specification and estimate (PS&E) phase of the project to verify the presence or absence of the identified RECs presented in the Phase 1 ISA prepared for the project.
If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall comply with the following:
Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City Engineer of the City of Calimesa;
• Secure the area as directed by the City Engineer; and • Notify the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (or other appropriate agency specified by the City Engineer). The Hazardous Waste/Materials coordinator shall advise the responsible part of further actions that shall be taken, if required.
2.2.6 Air Quality
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 (CCAA) is its companion state law. These laws, and related regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), set standards for the concentration of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have been established for six criteria pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter (PM) —which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PMio) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5), Lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, state standards exist for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety, and are subject to periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics in their general definition.
Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project -level air quality analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 276 453
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures (NEPA). In addition to this environmental analysis, a parallel "Conformity" requirement under the FCAA also applies.
Conformity
The conformity requirement is based on FCAA 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 attaining 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 (03), particulate matter (PMio and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California), sulfur dioxide (SO2). California has nonattainment 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 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 FCAA 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 the 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 and scope and the "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.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 277 454
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Project -level conformity is achieved by demonstrating that the project comes from a conforming RTP and TIP; the project has a design concept and scope6 that has not changed significantly from those in the RTP and TIP; project analyses have used the latest planning assumptions and EPA -approved emissions models; and in PM areas, the project complies with any control measures in the SIP. Furthermore, additional analyses (known as hot -spot analyses) may be required for projects located in CO and PM nonattainment or maintenance areas to examine localized air quality impacts.
Affected Environment
This section is based on the findings of Air Quality Report (AQR) (dated December 2020) prepared for this project.
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the City of Calimesa, in Riverside County, on I- 10 between Singleton Road and Oak Valley Parkway. Riverside County is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB includes all of Orange County and a portion of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
Climate, Meteorology, and Topography
Climate, meteorology and terrain can influence air quality. Certain weather parameters are highly correlated to air quality, including temperature, the amount of sunlight, and the type of winds at the surface and above the surface. Winds can transport 03 and 03 precursors from one region to another, contributing to air quality problems downwind of source regions.
Furthermore, mountains can act as barriers that prevent 03 from dispersing.
The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. During the spring and early summer, pollution is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to Earth's surface. On days with no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods with low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants become more concentrated in urbanized areas with pollution sources of great magnitude.
SCAB experiences frequent temperature inversions. Atmospheric temperature typically decreases with height. However, under inversion conditions, temperature increases as altitude increases, thereby preventing 6 "Design concept" means the type of facility that is proposed, such as a freeway or arterial highway. "Design scope" refers to those aspects of the project that would clearly affect capacity and thus any regional emissions analysis, such as the number of lanes and the length of the project.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 278 455
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures air close to the ground from mixing with the air above it. As a result, air pollutants are trapped near the ground.
The Redlands climatological station, maintained by SCAQMD, is the closest station to the project area and representative of meteorological conditions near the project. The average high and low temperatures are 95 degrees Fahrenheit (July) and 39 degrees Fahrenheit (January). Average annual precipitation is 13.56 inches.
Criteria Pollutants and Attainment Status
Regional air quality is monitored by SCAQMD and ARB. These two agencies operate a network of air quality monitoring stations in the Air Basin. The U.S.
EPA determines regional air quality status based on data collected from these permanent monitoring stations. Existing air quality conditions in the project area can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards that the State of California and the federal government have established for several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). Table 2.2.6-1 summarizes the attainment status designations for Riverside County for all regulated pollutants. It shows that Riverside County is classified as a nonattainment area for the State 1 hour and 8 hour 03 standard, as well as State 24 hour and annual PM2.5 standard. More notably, it shows that Riverside County is classified as an extreme nonattainment area for the federal 8 -hour 03 standard, a serious nonattainment area for the federal PM2.5 standard, and a maintenance serious area for the federal CO standard.
Transportation Conformity Rule
The U.S. EPA, in conjunction with the USDOT, established the Transportation Conformity Rule on November 30, 1993. The rule implements the FCAA conformity provision, which mandates that the federal government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or permitting, or approve any activity not conforming to an approved FCAA implementation plan.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 279 456
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-1: State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State'
Standard
Federal2
Standard
Principal Health
and Atmospheric
Effects
Typical Sources
State Project Area
Attainment Status
Federal Project Area
Attainment Status
Ozone (03)3
1 hour
0.09 ppm'
---
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.
Nonattainment
---
Ozone (03)3
8 hours
0.070 ppm
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.
Nonattainment
Extreme Nonattainment
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)5
1 hour
20 ppm
35 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.
Attainment
Maintenance Serious
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)5
8 hours
9.0 ppm
9 ppm
CO interferes with the
transfer of oxygen to the
blood and deprives
sensitive tissues of
Combustion sources,
especially gasoline -powered
engines and motor vehicles.
CO is the traditional signature
Attainment
Maintenance Serious
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 280 457
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State'
Standard
Federal2
Standard
Principal Health
and Atmospheric
Effects
Typical Sources
State Project Area
Attainment Status
Federal Project Area
Attainment Status
oxygen. CO also is a
minor precursor for
photochemical ozone.
Colorless, odorless.
pollutant for on -road mobile
sources at the local and
neighborhood scale.
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)5
8 hours
(Lake Tahoe)
6 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.
---
Maintenance Serious
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM1o)6
24 hours
50 pg/m37
150 pg/m3
(expected
number of
days above
standard <
or equal to
1 )Error!
Bookmark not
defined.
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
PM1o.
Dust- and fume -producing
industrial and agricultural
operations; combustion
smoke & vehicle exhaust;
atmospheric chemical
reactions; construction and
other dust -producing
activities; unpaved road dust
and re -entrained paved road
dust; natural sources.
Nonattainment
Serious Maintenance
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM1o)6
Annual
20 pg/m3
---
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
PM1o.
Dust- and fume -producing
industrial and agricultural
operations; combustion
smoke & vehicle exhaust;
atmospheric chemical
reactions; construction and
other dust -producing
activities; unpaved road dust
and re -entrained paved road
dust; natural sources.
Nonattainment
---
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM25)6
24 hours
---
35 pg/m3
Increases respiratory
disease, lung damage,
cancer, and premature
death. Reduces visibility
Combustion including motor
vehicles, other mobile
sources, and industrial
activities; residential and
---
Serious Nonattainment
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 281 458
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State'
Standard
Federal2
Standard
Principal Health
and Atmospheric
Effects
Typical Sources
State Project Area
Attainment Status
Federal Project Area
Attainment Status
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.
agricultural burning; also
formed through atmospheric
chemical and photochemical
reactions involving other
pollutants including NOx,
sulfur oxides (SOx),
ammonia, and ROG.
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM25)8
Annual
12 pg/m3
12.0 pg/m3
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.
Nonattainment
Moderate Nonattainment
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
1 hour
0.18 ppm
0.100 ppm9
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.
Attainment
Attainment
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
0.030 ppm
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.
Attainment
Maintenance (Moderate)
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 282 459
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State'
Standard
Federalz
Standard
Principal Health
and Atmospheric
Effects
Typical Sources
State Project Area
Attainment Status
Federal Project Area
Attainment Status
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)10
1 hour
0.25 ppm
0.075 ppm
(99th
percentile
over 3
years)
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.
Attainment
Attainment
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)10
3 hours
---
0.5 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.
--
Attainment
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)10
24 hours
0.04 ppm
0.14 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.
Attainment
Attainment
Sulfur
Dioxide
(S02)1°
Annual
---
0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)
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.
--
Attainment
Lead (Pb)12
Monthly
1.5 pg/m3
---
Disturbs gastrointestinal
system. Causes anemia,
Lead -based industrial
processes like battery
Attainment
---
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 283 460
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State'
Standard
Federal2
Standard
Principal Health
and Atmospheric
Effects
Typical Sources
State Project Area
Attainment Status
Federal Project Area
Attainment Status
kidney disease, and
neuromuscular and
neurological dysfunction.
Also a toxic air
contaminant and water
pollutant.
production and smelters.
Lead paint, leaded gasoline.
Aerially deposited lead from
older gasoline use may exist
in soils along major roads.
Lead (Pb)12
Calendar
Quarter
---
1.5 pg/m3
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 use may exist
in soils along major roads.
---
Attainment
Lead (Pb)12
Rolling 3-
month
average
---
(for certain
areas)
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 use may exist
in soils along major roads.
---
Attainment
Sulfates
24 hours
25 pg/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.
Attainment
N/A
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.
Attainment
N/A
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
(VRP)14
8 hours
Visibility of
10 miles or
more
(Tahoe: 30
miles) at
---
Reduces visibility.
Produces haze.
NOTE: not directly related
to the Regional Haze
program under the Federal
See particulate matter above.
May be related more to
aerosols than to solid
particles.
Attainment
N/A
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 284 461
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State'
Standard
Federal2
Standard
Principal Health
and Atmospheric
Effects
Typical Sources
State Project Area
Attainment Status
Federal Project Area
Attainment Status
relative
humidity
less than
Clean Air Act, which is
oriented primarily toward
visibility issues in National
70%
Parks and other "Class 1"
areas. However, some
issues and measurement
methods are similar.
Vinyl
Chloride12
24 hours
0.01 ppm
---
Neurological effects, liver
damage, cancer.
Industrial processes
Attainment
N/A
Also considered a toxic air
contaminant.
Notes: Adapted from the California ARB Air Quality Standards chart ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf) .
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Greenhouse gases do not have concentration standards for that purpose. Conformity requirements do not apply to greenhouse gases. ' California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8 -hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 Federal standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8 -hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 -hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour average concentration above 150 pg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 -hour standard is attained when 98 % of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8 -hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. Transportation conformity applies in newly designated nonattainment areas for the 2015 national 8 -hour ozone primary and secondary standards on and after August 415, 2019 (see Transportation Conformity Guidance for 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas).
° ppm = parts per million.
5 Transportation conformity requirements for CO no longer apply after June 1, 2018 for the following California Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Areas (see U.S. EPA CO Maintenance Letter).
6 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 pg/m3 to 12 pg/m3. The existing national 24 -hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 pg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 pg/m3. The existing 24 -hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 pg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. ' pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
8 The 65 pg/m3 PM2,o (24 -hr) NAAQS was not revoked when the 35 pg/m3 NAAQS was promulgated in 2006. The 15 pg/m3 annual PM2.5 standard was not revoked when the 12 pg/m3 standard was promulgated in 2012. Therefore, for areas designated nonattainment or nonattainment/maintenance for the 1997 and or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, conformity requirements still apply until the NAAQS are fully revoked.
9 Final 1 -hour NO2 NAAQS published in the Federal Register on 2/9/2010, effective 3/9/2010. 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. 10 On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the 3 - year average of the annual 991h %ile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 285 462
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 11 Secondary standard, the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant rather than health. Conformity and environmental analysis address both primary and secondary NAAQS. 12 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 PA/Nand, in larger proportion, PM2e. Both the ARB and U.S. EPA have identified lead and various organic compounds that are precursors to ozone and PM25 as toxic air contaminants. There are no exposure criteria for adverse health effect 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. 73 Lead NAAQS are not considered in Transportation Conformity analysis. 74 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10 -mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of
0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 286 Item 9.
463
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Transportation Conformity Rule distinguishes between metropolitan and rural areas since metropolitan areas have MPO's, which are specifically charged with determining conformity under the FCAA. The MPO is responsible for transportation planning, including the development of federally required metropolitan transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and determining conformity of such plans and TIPs. Transportation projects in rural areas are not included in MPO plans and TIPs. However, there are two types of rural areas for the purposes of the transportation conformity program, and the conformity requirements in these two types of rural areas are different. These two types of rural areas are defined as Isolated and Donut Areas.'
Local Ambient Air Quality
Potential air quality trends for the project study area were also monitored through the data collected at the Banning Airport and Riverside-Rubidoux monitoring stations. Tables 2.2.6-2 through 2.2.6-6 lists the air quality trends in data collected at both stations between 2016 and 2018. These stations are representative of the project area because their climate, topography, and urban setting are like those of the project area. During the 2016 to 2018 monitoring period, exceedances were recorded at the monitoring stations for the State 1 -hour 03 standard, State and federal 8 -hour 03 standards, and State PMio and PM2.5 standards. Figure 2.2.6-1, Air Quality Monitoring Stations Located Near the Project, shows the proximities between the Banning Airport and Riverside-Rubidoux Monitoring Stations and the project location, with the Banning Airport Monitoring Station being in a closer approximation to the project site than the Riverside-Rubidoux Monitoring Station.
Table 2.2.6-2: Ozone Pollutant Concentrations Measured
Item 9.
Pollutant
Standard
2016
2017
2018
Maximum 1 -hour concentration
--
0.128
0.128
0.119
Number of days exceeded: State
0.09 ppm
26 50
33 Maximum 8 -hour concentration
--
0.106
0.105
0.106
Number of days exceeded: State
0.070 ppm
52 82
69 Number of days exceeded: Federal
0.070 ppm
54 85
69 Notes: ppm = parts per million.
Sources: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Refer to Section 93.101 of the Transportation Conformity Rule.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 287 464
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.6-1: Air Quality Monitoring Stations Located Near the Project
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 1O/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT 2 • Wiles
^- -r Bann Ing Airport
Air QuatkrylaonitorfngStation
Air Quality Monitoring Stations Located Near the Project Figure 2.2.6-1
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 288 Item 9.
465
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-3: Carbon Monoxide Pollutant Concentrations Measured Item 9.
Pollutant
Standard
2016
2017
2018
Maximum 1 -hour concentration
1.7 2.2
2.2 Number of days exceeded: State
20 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeded: Federal
35 ppm
0 0
0 Maximum 8 -hour concentration
--
1.3 2.0
2.0 Number of days exceeded: State
9.0 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeded: Federal
9.0 ppm
0 0
0 Notes: ppm = parts per million.
Sources: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-4: Particulate Matter (PMio) Pollutant Concentrations Measured
Pollutant
Standard
2016
2017
2018
Maximum 24 -hour concentration
--
65.0 97.9
39.3 Number of days exceeded: State
50 pg/m3
3 6
0 Number of days exceeded: Federal
150 pg/m3
0 0
0 Maximum annual concentration
--
24.0 22.8
20.0 Exceeded: State
20 pg/m3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Notes: pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Sources: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-5: Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Pollutant Concentrations Measured
Pollutant
Standard
2016
2017
2018
Maximum 24 -hour concentration
--
60.8 50.3
68.3 Number of days exceeded: Federal
35 pg/m3
5 7
3 Maximum annual concentration
--
12.6 14.5
12.6 Exceeded: State
12 pg/m3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exceeded: Federal
12.0 pg/m3
--
Yes
Yes
Notes: pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Sources: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 289 466
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-6: Nitrogen Dioxide Pollutant Concentrations Measured Item 9.
Pollutant
Standard
2016
2017
2018
Maximum 1 -hour concentration
--
46.9 ppb
56.3 ppb
50.6 ppb
Number of days exceeded: State
0.18 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeded: Federal
100 ppb
0 0
0 Maximum annual concentration
--
8 ppb
8 ppb
8 ppb
Exceeded: State
0.030 ppm
No
No
No
Exceeded: Federal
53 ppb
No
No
No
Notes: ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million.
Sources: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-7 describes the status of the U.S. EPA -approved SIPs for the SCAB relevant to the project.
Table 2.2.6-7: Status of SIPs Relevant to the Project Area Name/Description
Status
2019 South Coast 8 -Hour Ozone SIP Update
Approved, November 2019
2018 South Coast SIP Revisions and Updates
Approved, December 2018
2016 Ozone and PM2.5 Plan for the SCAB and Coachella Valley Approved, March 2017
2010 SCAB PM,o Re -designation Request, Maintenance Plan, and Conformity Budgets
Approved, February 2010
2005 South Coast Carbon Monoxide Plan
Approved, February 2006
Sources: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern.
Due to the size of the project area and the project's potential to influence receptors at great distances from the project site, the sensitive receptors for the project were within 2,000 feet of the project site. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, athletic fields, playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, hospitals, and residences. As shown in Figure 2.2.6-2, Sensitive Land Use Receptors Near the Project, sensitive land uses were identified: two nearby parks (Trevino Park and Palmer Park), one existing residence, and a planned residency area under the Summerwind Specific Plan.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Diesel -powered vehicles that use local and regional roadways in the area, including 1-10, are determined to be the most prominent sources of mobile source air toxics (MSAT) in the project area. There are no major rail yards, transit terminals, large warehouses, or distribution centers located near the project site.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 290 467
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.6-2: Sensitive Land Use Receptors Near the Project
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE1O/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT 0 Boo 1,20D
Feel
Sensitive Land Use Receptors Near the Project
Figure 2.2.6.2
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 291 Item 9.
468
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Chrysotile and amphibole asbestos (such as tremolite) occur naturally in certain geologic settings in California, most commonly in association with ultramafic rocks and along associated faults. Asbestos is a known carcinogen and inhalation of asbestos may result in the development of lung cancer or mesothelioma. The asbestos contents of many manufactured products have been regulated in the United States for a number of years. For example, CARB has regulated the amount of asbestos in crushed serpentinite used in surfacing applications, such as for gravel on unpaved roads, since 1990. In 1998, new concerns were raised about possible health hazards from activities that disturb rocks and soil containing asbestos and may result in the generation of asbestos laden dust. These concerns recently lead CARB to revise their asbestos limit for crushed serpentinite and ultramafic rock in surfacing applications from five percent to less than 0.25 percent, and to adopt a new rule requiring best practices dust control measures for activities that disturb rock and soil containing naturally occurring asbestos (NOA).
NOA in bedrock is typically associated with serpentine and peridotite deposits. Note that during demolition activities, the likelihood of encountering structural asbestos is low due to the nature of the demolished materials. The material would consist primarily of concrete. Therefore, the potential for NOA to be present within the project limits is considered to be low. Furthermore, prior to the commencement of construction, qualified geologists would further examine the soils and makeup of the existing structure. Should the project geologist encounter asbestos during the analysis, proper steps shall be executed to handle the materials.
Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
No construction activities associated with the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange would occur under the No -Build Alternative. Therefore, temporary air quality effects would not occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
The Build Alternatives would generally modify and reconfigure the I-10/Cherry Valley Interchange. Project construction would include clearing, cut -and -fill activities, grading, and paving. This would cause a release of particulate emissions and create a temporary degradation of air quality in the area. Tables 2.2.6-8, Construction Phase Emission Estimates - Build Alternative 3 and 2.2.6-9, Construction Phase Emission Estimates - Build Alternative 4 show the estimated peak daily construction emissions (in pounds per day) during the construction phase under each Build Alternative. Because project construction is expected to last less than five years, construction -related emissions were not considered in the conformity analysis.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 292 469
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-8: Construction Phase Emission Estimates - Build Alternative 3 Reactive
Organic
Gases
(113/day) (Ib/day)
Nitrogen
Oxides
Carbon
Monoxide
(IbCday)
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(lb/day)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(Ib day)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(b//day)
Year 1 Maximum
8 82
66 13
5 <1
Grubbing/Land Clearing
1 10
10 10
2 <1
Grading/Excavation
8 82
66 13
5 <1
Year 2 Maximum
5 52
47 12
4 <1
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-
Grade
5 52
47 12
4 <1
Paving
1 14
14 1
<1
<1
Item 9.
Note: Emissions estimated using the Road Construction Emission Model (version 9.0) from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and project -specific data provided by the design staff.
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-9: Construction Phase Emission Estimates - Build Alternative 4 Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
(lb/day)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(lb/day)
Carbon
Monoxide
(IbCday)
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(Ib/day)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(Ib day)
Sulfur
Dioxide
02)
(lb/day)
Year 1 Maximum
8 80
66 13
5 <1
Grubbing/Land Clearing
1 10
10 10
2 <1
Grading/Excavation
8 80
66 13
5 <1
Year 2 Maximum
5 52
47 12
4 <1
Drainage/Utilities/ Sub-
Grade
5 52
47 12
4 <1
Paving
1 15
14 1
<1
<1
Note: Emissions estimated using the Road Construction Emission Model (version 9.0) from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and project -specific data provided by the design staff.
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Construction emissions were estimated using the latest Road Construction Emission Model (RCEM) (version 9.0) from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. RCEM is a data -entry spreadsheet that utilizes various sources to estimate construction emissions. RCEM is recommended by Caltrans and the SCAQMD as it is specifically developed to estimate emissions associated with transportation construction projects since the default equipment, activities, and typical phasing are different than those of land use development projects and building construction projects. The model is used for that purpose in this project.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 293 470
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures In order to minimize construction -related emissions, all construction equipment would use low -sulfur fuel, as required by California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. Compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rules and regulations would occur. In order to further minimize construction -related emissions, all construction vehicles and construction equipment would be required to be equipped with state -mandated emission control devices pursuant to state emission regulations and standard construction practices. After construction of the proposed project is complete, all construction -related impacts would cease. Temporary construction particulate matter emissions would be further reduced through the implementation of dust suppression measures outlined within SCAQMD Rule 403. Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Sections 14-11.04 [Dust Control]) and 14-9.02 [Air Pollution Control]) would also be adhered to for asphalt concrete emissions and all earthwork, clearing and grubbing, and roadbed activities involving heavy construction equipment. The contractor would comply with all air pollution control ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, including any air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes, specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code. The Build Alternatives would comply with any State, federal, and/or local rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control and mitigation measures proposed as part of their respective SIPs. Therefore, construction of the Build Alternatives is not anticipated to violate State or federal air quality standards or contribute to the existing air quality violations in the SCAB.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
There are no geologic features that are normally associated with naturally occurring asbestos (serpentine rock or ultramafic rock near fault zones) present in or near the project area. Significantly adverse effects from naturally occurring asbestos during the project construction phase would be minimal to none.
Impacts related to structural asbestos and aerially deposited lead (ADL) is discussed in Section 2.2.5, Hazardous Waste/Materials, above.
Permanent Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Improvements to the existing I-10/Cherry Valley interchange would not occur under the No -Build Alternative. Accordingly, adverse effects related to air quality would not occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Emissions were evaluated through modeling using the Caltrans EMFAC (CT- EMFAC2017) model and available vehicle activity data corresponding with the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) (November 2020).
Tables 2.2.6-10, Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, 2.2.6-11, Net Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Comparison to Existing Conditions, and 2.2.6-12, Net Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Comparison to No -Build Conditions, summarizes the modeled emissions by scenario and compares emissions under the build alternatives with emissions under the No -Build Alternative and existing conditions.
The differences in emissions between with- and without -project conditions represent Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 294 471
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures emissions generated directly from implementing the build alternatives. Vehicular emission rates are anticipated to lessen in future years because of continuing improvements in engine technology and the retirement of older, higher -emitting vehicles.
Table 2.2.6-10: Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Scenario/Analysis Year
ROG
(tons per
year)
NOx
(tons per
year)
CO (tons
per year)
PM,o
(tons per
year)
PM2.5
(tons per
year)
SO2 (tons
per year)
Existing year (2019)
58 297
735
186
41 <1
Opening -year (2025) No-
Build Alternative
44 172
561
231
48 <1
Opening -year (2025)
Alternative 3
44 172
561
231
48 <1
Opening -year (2025)
Alternative 4
44 172
561
231
48 <1
Design -year (2045) No-
Build Alternative
37 192
579
368
75 <1
Design -year (2045)
Alternative 3
37 192
579
368
75 <1
Design -year (2045)
Alternative 4
37 192
579
368
75 <1
Item 9.
Notes: Modeled using CT-EMFAC2017.
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-11: Net Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Comparison to Existing Conditions
Scenario/Analysis Year
ROG
(tons per
year)
NOx
(tons per
year)
CO (tons
per year)
PM,o
(tons per
year)
PM2.5
(tons per
year)
SO2 (tons
per year)
Opening -year (2025)
Alternative 3
-14
-125
-174
45 7
0 Opening -year (2025)
Alternative 4
-14
-125
-174
45 7
0 Design -year (2045)
Alternative 3
-21
-105
-156
182
34 0
Design -year (2045)
Alternative 4
-21
-105
-156
182
34 0
Notes: Modeled using CT-EMFAC2017.
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 295 472
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-12: Net Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Comparison to No - Build Conditions
Scenario/Analysis Year
ROG
(tons per
year)
NO. (tons
per year)
CO (tons
per year)
PMio
(tons per
year)
PM2.5
(tons per
year)
SO2 (tons
per year)
Opening -year (2025)
Alternative 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
Opening -year (2025)
Alternative 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
Design -year (2045)
Alternative 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
Design -year (2045)
Alternative 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
Item 9.
Notes: Modeled using CT-EMFAC2017.
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
The emissions analysis presented in Tables 2.2.6-10 and 2.2.6-11 shows that operation of the Build Alternatives under opening -year (2025) and design -year (2045) conditions would increase PMio, and PM2.5 emissions compared to existing conditions and decrease ROG, NOx, and CO emissions. As shown in Tables 2.2.6-10 and 2.2.6-12, implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in increases in PMio and PM2.5 criteria pollutant emissions compared to no -build conditions. The increase in PM is partly due to background growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 2019 to 2045, because PM fugitive dust emissions are a function of VMT. In addition, although PM exhaust emission factors decrease over time, fugitive dust PM emission factors increase over time due to the increase in truck percentages as a fraction of overall VMT within the study area. Accordingly, the total PM emissions increase over time. The decreases in other pollutants are due to expected improvements in vehicle engine technology, fuel efficiency, and turnover in older, more heavily polluting vehicles, which reduces exhaust emissions.
Another reason the implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in PMio and PM2.5 criteria pollutant emissions compared to no -build conditions is because the project would increase regional capacity, although there would be no increase in trip generation. Although AM and PM peak vehicle hours of delay through the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange would decrease as a result of the proposed project, PMio and PM2.5 criteria pollutant emissions would increase due to the increase in overall daily VMT in the transportation study area.
Regional Conformity
The proposed project is listed in the SCAG 2020-2045 financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which was found to conform by FHWA and FTA on June 5, 2020. The project is also included in SCAG's 2021 FTIP Technical Appendix Volume III of III Part A, on page 67 of 610 (RIV060116), adopted on March 4, 2021. The SCAG Regional Council 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan was approved by FHWA and FTA on April 1, 2020. The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 296 473
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, 2021 FTIP Amendment 17, and the open -to -traffic assumptions of the most recent SCAG regional emissions analysis.
Project Level Conformity
Nonattainment/maintenance areas are subject to the Transportation Conformity Rule, which requires local transportation and air quality officials to coordinate planning to ensure that transportation projects such as road construction do not affect an area's ability to reach its clean air goals. The project is located in a federal nonattainment area for 03 and PM2.5 and an attainment/maintenance area for CO, PM1o, and NO2.
Additionally, the project is located in a nonattainment area for 03, PM2.5 and PMio.
Therefore, a project -level hot -spot analysis is required under 40 CFR 93.109. The project complies with all PM2.5 and PMio measures in the SIP, and implements measures relied upon in the RTP/FTIP regional conformity analysis in a timely matter.
Particulate Matter Hot -Spot Analysis
A hot -spot analysis is required in nonattainment and maintenance areas for CO, PM1o, and PM2.5. The Transportation Conformity Guidance requires a hot -spot analysis to be completed for a project of air quality concern (POAQC). The Build Alternatives are within a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards and attainment/maintenance area for federal CO and PMio standards. Therefore, per 40 CFR Part 93, analyses are required for conformity purposes. However, the EPA does not require hot -spot analyses (either qualitative or quantitative) for those that are not listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) as a POAQC. A hot -spot analysis is defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as an estimation of likely future localized pollutant concentrations resulting from a new transportation project and a comparison of those concentrations to the relevant air quality standard. A hot -spot analysis assesses the air quality impacts on a scale smaller than an entire nonattainment or maintenance area, including, for example, congested roadway intersections and highways or transit terminals. Such an analysis is a means of demonstrating that a transportation project meets FCAA conformity requirements to support state and local air quality goals with respect to potential localized air quality impacts.
The following criteria are directly associated with 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). The associated discussions address why the proposed project does not qualify as a POAQC:
1. New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or increase in diesel vehicles.
The existing traffic volumes along the roadway segments in the project study area are provided in Table 2.2.6-13, Existing/Baseline (2019) Traffic Volumes. As shown in Table 2.2.6-13, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) ranges in the project site from 10,200 to 106,900. Trucks make up between one to two percent of the AADT for each segment.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 297 474
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-13: Existing/Baseline (2019) Traffic Volumes Segment
Total
AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage
of Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to
Singleton Road
74,900
1300
2%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley
Parkway
106,900
1100
1 Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Street
10,200
500
2%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Road
10,200
500
2%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Tables 2.2.6-14 through 2.2.6-19 depict the Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2045) study segment traffic volumes for both the No -Build and Build Alternatives. As shown in each table, the opening year and design year AADT and truck volumes increase compared to the baseline year. However, the total AADT volumes and the percentage of diesel truck are expected to remain consistent between the No -Build and Build Alternatives. Accordingly, the project would not increase the truck traffic volumes and would not result in a higher proportion of trucks overall in the project area.
Therefore, the project would not significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles.
Table 2.2.6-14: Opening Year (2025) Traffic Volumes - No -Build Alternative Segment
Total
AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage
of Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to
Singleton Road
84,500
6,800
8.7%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley
Parkway
122,900
9,900
8.7%
Cherry Valley Blvd: 1-10 to Roberts Street
14,900
1,200
8.7%
Cherry Valley Blvd: 1-10 to Roberts Road
14,900
1,200
8.7%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-15: Opening Year (2025) Traffic Volumes - Build Alternative 3 Segment
Total AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage of
Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to Singleton
Road
84,500
6,800
8.7%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley
Parkway
122,900
9,900
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Street
14,900
1,200
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Road
14,900
1,200
8.7%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 298 475
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-16: Opening Year (2025) Traffic Volumes - Build Alternative 4 Segment
Total AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage of
Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to Singleton
Road
84,500
6,800
8.7%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley
Parkway
122,900
9,900
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Street
14,900
1,200
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Road
14,900
1,200
8.7%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-17: Design Year (2045) Traffic Volumes - No -Build Alternative Segment
Total AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage of
Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to Singleton
Road
116,600
9,400
8.7%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Road to Oak Valley
Parkway
176,400
14,200
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Street
30,700
2,500
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Road
30,700
2,500
8.7%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-18: Design Year (2045) Traffic Volumes - Build Alternative 3 Segment
Total AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage of
Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to Singleton
Road
116,600
9,400
8.7%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Rd to Oak Valley
Parkway
176,400
14,200
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Street
30,700
2,500
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Road
30,700
2,500
8.7%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Table 2.2.6-19: Design Year (2045) Traffic Volumes Build Alternative 4 Segment
Total
AADT
Number of
Trucks
Percentage of
Trucks
Eastbound 1-10: Oak Valley Parkway to Singleton Road
116,600
9,400
8.7%
Westbound 1-10: Singleton Rd to Oak Valley Parkway
176,400
14,200
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Street
30,700
2,500
8.7%
Cherry Valley Boulevard: 1-10 to Roberts Road
30,700
2,500
8.7%
Source: ICF, Air Quality Report Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project, dated December 2020.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 299 476
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
2. Projects affecting intersections that are at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to LOS D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project.
The Build Alternatives would not affect intersections that are at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles. Implementation of the Build Alternatives would enhance traffic flow in the project area for both truck traffic and general traffic. Based on the traffic data in Tables 2.2.6-20 through 2.2.6-25 the proposed project would not result in significant changes in traffic volume, vehicle mix, or other factors that would cause an increase in emissions.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would improve vehicle flow at the Cherry Valley Boulevard Overcrossing structure. Tables 2.2.6-20 and 2.2.6-25, below, summarize the peak - hour LOS and delay at 10 study area intersections under opening -year (2025) and design -year (2045) conditions. As shown in Table 2.2.6-20, Opening -Year (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis- No -Build Alternative, all vehicle lanes, with the exception of the Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard and the 1-10 westbound off -ramp during the AM peak hour and the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 westbound on -ramp during both the AM and PM peak hours, would be at an unacceptable LOS D or better under opening -year (2025) no -build conditions.
Tables 2.2.6-21 and 2.2.6-22 show that the implementation of the Build Alternatives would enhance traffic operations and facilitate vehicle movement at the 1-10 on- and off -ramps and along Cherry Valley Boulevard, improving the Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard and 1-10 westbound off -ramp from an unacceptable LOS E to an LOS D during the AM peak hour and the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 westbound on -ramp from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table 2.2.6-23 the majority of the intersections, including Cherry Valley Boulevard and Palmer Avenue/Desert Lawn, Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road, and 1-10 eastbound ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the design -year (2045) under the No -Build Alternative. Implementation of the Build Alternatives would improve traffic operations and facilitate vehicle movement at the aforementioned intersections and would improve LOS to C or better during AM and PM peak hours for all intersections.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 300 477
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-20: Opening -Year (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis - No -Build Alternative
Intersection
Delay (AM)
sec/veh
Delay (PM)
sec/veh
LOS
(AM)
LOS
(PM)
1-10 EB Ramps and Singleton Road
19.4 16.9
B
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Singleton Road
16.3 19.5
B
B
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn
439.5
290.3
F
F
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road
166.5
281.2
F
F
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Old Roberts Road
-
-
-
-
1-10 EB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
68.2 114.7
E
F
1-10 WB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
59.3 24.9
E
C
Calimesa Blvd and Cherry Valley Boulevard
109
22.2 F
C
1-10 EB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
11.6 16.7
B
B
1-10 EB Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
-
-
B
B
1-10 Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
8.3 10.9
A
B
1-10 WB Ramps an Oak Valley Parkway
88.3 20.3
A
B
Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable operations, should unacceptable operations exist EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; sec/veh = seconds per vehicle; WB = westbound Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document: Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020.
Table 2.2.6-21: Opening -Year (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis - Build Alternative 3
Intersection
Delay (AM)
sec/veh
Delay (PM)
sec/veh
LOS
(AM)
LOS
(PM)
1-10 EB Ramps and Singleton Road
20.1 17.9
C
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Singleton Road
16.6 19.5
B
B
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn
27.7 8.2
C
C
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road
13.5 19
B
B
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Old Roberts Road
--
--
--
--
1-10 EB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
22.1 14.7
C
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
6.8 5.6
A
A
Calimesa Blvd and Cherry Valley Boulevard
21.8 9.8
C
A
1-10 EB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
11.6 16.5
B
B
1-10 EB Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
11.6 16.5
B
B
I-10 Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
8.7 10.9
A
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
10.9 10.9
A
B
Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable operations, should unacceptable operations exist, EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; sec/veh = seconds per vehicle; WB = westbound Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document: Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 301 478
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-22: Opening -Year (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis - Build Alternative 4
Item 9.
Intersection
Delay (AM)
sec/veh
Delay (PM)
sec/veh
LOS (AM)
LOS (PM)
1-10 EB Ramps and Singleton Road
19.4 17.8
B
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Singleton Road
19.2 20.1
B
C
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Palmer Avenue/
Desert Lawn Drive
26 20.6
C
C
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road
12.2 18.8
B
B
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Old Roberts Road
__
__
__
__
1-10 EB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
11.4 13.7
B
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
Right -turn to
WB on -ramp
Right -turn to
WB on -ramp
Right -turn to
WB on -ramp
Right -turn to
WB on -ramp
Calimesa Blvd and Cherry Valley Boulevard
20.5 15
C
B
1-10 EB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
11.8 16.3
B
B
1-10 EB Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
11.8 16.3
B
B
1-10 Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
8.9 11.2
A
B
1-10 WB Ramps an Oak Valley Parkway
8.9 11.2
A
B
Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable operations, should unacceptable operations exist.
EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; sec/veh = seconds per vehicle; WB = westbound Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document: Traffic Operations Analysis Report, November 2020.
Table 2.2.6-23: Design -Year (2045) Intersection Operations Analysis- No -Build Alternative
Intersection
Delay (AM)
sec/veh
Delay (PM)
sec/veh
LOS
(AM)
LOS
(PM)
1-10 EB Ramps and Singleton Road
29.3 143.6
C
F
1-10 WB Ramps and Singleton Road
60.8 150.5
E
F
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn
994.6
171.4
F
F
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road
264.8
174.7
F
F
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Old Roberts Road
_
_
_
_
1-10 EB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
108.9
103.8
F
F
1-10 WB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
100
64.6 F
E
Calimesa Blvd and Cherry Valley Boulevard
20.5 21.1
C
C
1-10 EB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
15.4 18.4
B
B
1-10 EB Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
15.4 18.4
B
B
1-10 Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
56 12
E
B
1-10 WB Ramps an Oak Valley Parkway
56 12
E
B
Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable operations, should unacceptable operations exist EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; sec/veh = seconds per vehicle; WB = westbound Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document: Traffic Operations Analysis Report 2020.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 302 479
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-24: Design -Year (2045) Intersection Operations Analysis- Build Alternative 3
Intersection
Delay (AM)
sec/veh
Delay (PM)
sec/veh
LOS
(AM)
LOS
(PM)
1-10 EB Ramps and Singleton Road
29.1 57.2
C
E
1-10 WB Ramps and Singleton Road
27.2 53.8
C
D
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn
25.9 18.2
C
B
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road
26.1 63.8
C
E
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Old Roberts Road
--
___
--
--
1-10 EB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
24.3 16.9
C
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
11.3 8.9
B
A
Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley Boulevard
22.1 9.3
C
A
1-10 EB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
14.3 31.2
B
C
1-10 EB Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
14.3 31.2
B
C
1-10 Loop On and Oak Valley Parkway
10.8 12.7
B
B
1-10 WB Ramps an Oak Valley Parkway
10.8 12.7
Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable operations, should unacceptable operations exist EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; sec/veh = seconds per vehicle; WB = westbound Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document: Traffic Operations Analysis Report 2020.
Table 2.2.6-25: Design -Year (2045) Intersection Operations Analysis- Build Alternative 4
Intersection
Delay (AM)
sec/veh
Delay
(PM)
sec/veh
LOS (AM)
LOS (PM)
1-10 EB Ramps and Singleton Road
29.1 56.1
C
E
1-10 WB Ramps and Singleton Road
69 57
E
E
Cherry Valley Blvd. and Palmer Ave/Desert Lawn
23.8 17.2
C
B
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road
23.4 66.5
C
E
Cherry Valley Boulevard and Old Roberts Road
__
__
__
__
1-10 EB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
10.4 19.7
B
B
1-10 WB Ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard
Right -turn
to WB on-
ramp
Right -turn
to WB on-
ramp
Right -turn
to WB on-
ramp
Right -turn
to WB on -
ramp
Calimesa Blvd and Cherry Valley Boulevard
25.5 18.6
C
B
1-10 EB Ramps and Oak Valley Parkway
14.5 32.4
B
C
1-10 EB Loop On -Ramp and Oak Valley Pkwy
14.5 32.4
B
C
1-10 Loop On -Ramp and Oak Valley Parkway
11 13
B
B
1-10 WB Ramps an Oak Valley Parkway
11 13
B
B
Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable operations should unacceptable operations exist; EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; sec/veh = seconds per vehicle; WB = westbound Source: Fehr and Peers, 1-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document: Traffic Operations Analysis Report 2020.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 303 480
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
3. New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location.
The Build Alternatives would not introduce bus facilities, rail terminals, or transfer points that would increase volumes of diesel vehicles in the project area.
4. Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location.
The Build Alternatives would not expand bus facilities, rail terminals, or transfer points.
5. Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites identified in the applicable PM2.5 and PM10 implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation.
The Build Alternatives are not located in or affecting areas or category of sites identified in any applicable PM2.5 and PM10 implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation.
As demonstrated above, the Build Alternatives would not involve a significant amount of diesel truck traffic, as traffic volumes would be less than 125,000 ADT, and is in compliance with the RTP/FTIP. Therefore, the Build Alternatives meet the FCAA requirements and is not a project of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) and would not cause or contribute to a violation of NAAQS for PM2.5.
The SCAG's Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) determined that the proposed project is not a POAQC; refer to Interagency Consultation subsection, below.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered a POAQC under 40 CFR
93.123 (b)(1). The required Air Quality Conformity Analysis and associated determination letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be addressed following public circulation of the IS/EA.
Flowchart 1:
3.1.1: Is the project exempt from all emissions analyses?
3.1.1 Response: No. The project is not exempt because it does not fit any of the exemption categories identified in 40 CFR 93.126.
3.1.2: Is the project exempt from regional emissions analyses?
3.1.2 Response: No. The proposed project does not align with any of the project types exempted from regional emissions analyses under 40 CFR 93.127 (proceed to 3.1.3).
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 304 481
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
3.1.3: Is the project locally defined as regionally significant?
3.1.3 Response: Yes. The proposed project is considered a regionally significant transportation project, according to 40 CFR 93.101, because it is included in the modeling of the area's transportation network (proceed to 3.1.4).
3.1.4: Is the project in a federal attainment area?
3.1.4 Response: No. The proposed project is in the SCAB, which is a federal extreme nonattainment area for 03, and a serious nonattainment area for PM2.5 (see Table 2.2.6- 1) (proceed to 3.1.5).
3.1.5: Is there a currently conforming RTP and TIP?
3.1.5 Response: Yes. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and 2021 FTIP are conforming programs (proceed to 3.1.6).
3.1.6: Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming RTP and TIP?
3.1.6 Response: Yes. The project is identified in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS under project number RIV060116 and the 2021 FTIP under project number RIV060116. Therefore, it has been included in the regional emissions analysis (proceed to 3.1.7).
3.1.7: Has the project design concept and/or scope changed significantly from that in the regional analysis?
3.1.7 Response: No. The project design concept has not changed significantly from that in the regional analysis (proceed to 3.1.9).
3.1.9: The conclusion from this series of questions and answers is that the project needs to be examined for its local air impacts.
Based on the answers to the first flowchart, a second flowchart, is required to determine the level of local CO effect analysis required for the project. The questions that are applicable to the project are in the second flowchart.
Flowchart 2:
Level 1: Is the project in a CO nonattainment area?
Response: No. The project and its respective air basin are in an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards (Table 2.2.6-1).
Level 1: Was the area re -designated as an attainment area after the 1990 Clean Air Act?
Response: Yes. Riverside County was re -designated as an attainment area on June 11, 2007, and the associated maintenance plan will expire in 2027.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 305 482
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Level 1: Has "continued attainment" been verified with the local Air District, if appropriate?
Response: Yes. Based on ambient air monitoring data collected by SCAQMD, the SCAB has continually met the NAAQS for CO since 2002 (Proceed to Level 7).
Level 7: Does the project worsen air quality?
Response: No. According to Section 4.7.1 of the CO Protocol, the following criteria provide a basis for determining if a project has the potential to worsen localized air quality:
• The project significantly increases the percentage of vehicles operating in the cold - start mode. Increasing the number of vehicles in cold -start mode by as little as two percent should be considered potentially significant.
The Build Alternatives would not involve direct development of land or increase the percentage of vehicles operating in cold -start mode. The Build Alternatives would reconfigure the existing bridge at the existing location. The Build Alternatives would not result in changes to the percentage of vehicles operating in cold -start mode because no new parking or other trip -generating land uses would be associated with the Build Alternatives following construction.
• The project significantly increases traffic volumes. Increases in traffic volumes in excess of five percent should be considered potentially significant. Increasing the traffic volume by less than five percent may still be potentially significant if there is also a reduction in average speeds.
The Build Alternatives would not result in a material change in annual average daily traffic (AADT) on any road segment or at any intersection when compared to the No - Build condition.
• The project worsens traffic flow. For uninterrupted roadway segments, a reduction in average speeds (within a range of three to 50 miles per hour [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 a worsening of traffic flow.
The project improvements under the Build Alternatives would facilitate vehicle movement through the 1-10 interchange and on Cherry Valley Boulevard, resulting in reductions in vehicle hours of delay and vehicle hours of travel relative to the No -Build Alternative.
Interagency Consultation
Although the Build Alternatives are located within a serious nonattainment area for PM2.5 and PM10, a detailed hot spot analyses for each pollutant was not required because federal CAA and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements are met without an explicit hot - spot analysis. Rather, a project -level PM hot -spot analysis was prepared and presented to SCAG's Transportation Conformity Working Group for discussion and review in April Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 306 483
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2020. The form reflected the project description, limits, and traffic volumes and was listed under the current RTP/FTIP project identification numbers. As discussed above, it was determined that the Build Alternatives would not be considered a POAQC.
Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse effects to the regions current attainment status and PM.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 were compared to the No -Build Alternative regarding the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions. As discussed in the Air Quality Report, although the Build Alternatives would not result in substantial changes in traffic volumes or the vehicle mix that would cause a meaningful increase in regional MSAT emissions compared with those of the No -Build Alternative, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternatives could be higher relative to the No -Build Alternative at specific locations. However, the increase could be offset by increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). On a regional basis, U.S. EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than they are today. As such, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would have no meaningful regional MSAT effect and low potential for local MSAT emissions. There would be no significantly adverse effects involving MSAT arising from the project.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No measures are proposed.
Climate Change
Neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) nor the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued explicit guidance or methods to conduct project -level greenhouse gas analysis. FHWA emphasizes concepts of resilience and sustainability in highway planning, project development, design, operations, and maintenance. Because there have been requirements set forth in California legislation and executive orders on climate change, the issue is addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) chapter of this document. The CEQA analysis may be used to inform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determination for the project.
2.2.7 Noise and Vibration
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.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 307 484
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a strictly baseline versus build analysis to assess whether a proposed project will have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project unless those measures are not feasible. The rest of this section will focus on the NEPA/Title 23 Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) noise analysis; please see Chapter 3 of this document for further information on noise analysis under CEQA.
National Environmental Policy Act and 23 Code of Federal Regulations 772 For highway transportation projects with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) involvement (and the Department, as assigned), the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations (23 CFR 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project.
The regulations include noise abatement criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The NAC differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC for residences (67 dBA) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). The following table lists the noise abatement criteria for use in the NEPA/23 CFR 772 analysis.
Table 2.2.7-1: Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity
Category
NAC, Hourly A-
Weighted Noise
Level, Leq(h)
Description of activity category
A
57 (Exterior)
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B1
67 (Exterior)
Residential.
C1
67 (Exterior)
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings.
D
52 (Interior)
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios.
E
72 (Exterior)
Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A —D or F.
F
No NAC—
reporting only
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical, etc.), and warehousing.
G
No NAC—
reporting only
Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
Notes: ' Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 308 485
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-1 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.
Figure 2.2.7-1: Noise Levels for Common Activities
Common Outdoor
Activities
Nose Level
(d8A)
Common Indoor
Activities
Jet Fly -over at 300m (1000 ft)
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft)
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft),
at 80 km (50 mph)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft)
Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft)
Quiet Urban Daytime
Quiet Urban Nighttime
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
Quiet Rural Nighttime
Lowest Threshold of Human
Hearing
Rock Band
Food Blenderat 1 m (3 ft)
Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft)
Vacuum Cleaner at 3 rn (10 ft) ,
Normal Speech at 1 rn (3 ft)
Large Business Office
Dishwasher Next Room
Theater, Large Conference
Room (Background)
Library
Bedroom at Night,
Concert Hall (Background)
Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human
Hearing
According to the Department's Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 309 486
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures predicted future noise level with the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the NAC. A noise level is considered to approach the NAC if it is 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.
The Department's Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically an engineering concern. Noise abatement must be predicted to reduce noise by at least 5 dB at an impacted receptor to be considered feasible from an acoustical perspective. It must also be possible to design and construct the noise abatement measure for it to be considered feasible. Factors that affect the design and constructability of noise abatement include, but are not limited to, safety, barrier height, topography, drainage, access requirements for driveways, presence of local cross streets, underground utilities, other noise sources in the area, and maintenance of the abatement measure. The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by the following three factors: 1) the noise reduction design goal of 7 dB at one or more impacted receptors; 2) the cost of noise abatement; and 3) the viewpoints of benefited receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors).
Affected Environment
This section is based on the findings of the Noise Study Report (NSR) (dated April 2021) and the, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) (dated August 2021) prepared for this project.
Land Uses and Receptors
An inventory of developed and undeveloped land uses was identified during a field investigation for the project. Existing land uses in the area were categorized by land use type, NAC Activity Category (as defined in Table 2.2.7-1 above), and frequency of human use. The following land uses were identified in the project area:
• Single-family residences and mobile homes (Activity Category B); • Commercial properties ([with and without outdoor use areas] [Activity Category E]); and
• Undeveloped, unpermitted lands (Activity Category G).
Noise abatement is only considered for areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, this analysis focuses on locations with defined outdoor use areas, which include residential yards and outdoor use areas of commercial establishments. Generalized receivers (modeling locations that represent the public) were also included for unpermitted lands within the study area. Generalized receivers Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 310 487
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures are positioned no closer than 100 feet from the edge of the outside traffic lane in the area that best represents the highest expected traffic noise level.
Land uses in the project area are grouped into a series of lettered analysis areas that are identified in Figures 2.2.7-2 to 2.2.7-11. Each of these analysis areas is considered to be acoustically equivalent. The lettered analysis areas are further described below:
• Area A: Area A is located north of 1-10 and east of Singleton Road. This area contains one single-family residence (Activity Category B) and undeveloped, unpermitted land (Activity Category G). This area is relatively flat except for the single-family residence which is located on top of an approximate 20 -foot high hill as well as the eastern portion of this area which is also elevated. 1-10 is at grade relative to this area. There are no noise barriers located between the roadway and these land uses. • Area B: Area B is located north of 1-10 between Singleton Road and Cherry Valley Boulevard. This area contains the Rancho Calimesa Mobile Home Park (Activity Category B). This area is generally flat where 1-10 is at grade relative to this area.
There are no noise barriers located or topographic shielding occurring between the roadway and the residential land use.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 311 488
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 312 489
r51
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-2: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 1 of 10) ..� •'�".
�� ...••w.1 R10
w Kw+iM�w 1
R1b
5379 PP -8
a*la•-•I_•1aN++•r/arnwa.ar.wr•411_1•A•.rI+atla.as1aa1 art•rtlr•. w11>M.Iwle.1•_ 11r++w. 1. Ha•1.t t E END CONY - COI+AF1 AL —1:1-0— NOSE BA R1 H - FEPSELE AND LEFTS EESEN GOAL OLT - LONB-TERM MEM` ARBA@JT / SFR - SNCi.EfMRY FE9DENCE —0-- NOISE BARRER - FEASIBLE our DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL MODELED RECEfV€FI NFR- MULTI -FAMILY RESICINDE . .. NOISE BAAFIEA - NCR FFASaIF NCR MEETS DESIGN Ci6AL e!T SHORT TERM MEASUREMENT /
MODELED RECEIVER RIGI R OF AWAY 500' NOISE STUN CHARS
*RJU - MODELED ONLY RECBV✓3i _..-.._..-... - NOISE STUDY PFEAS PROJECT IAPROVEMEr f WAFTS ■lateWna1.+a.AI■1r■...••00t.- 1. r1•a.1f• 1a.•a1.a
$40'1 E0.5
vat"."ai atau—w•ewalati a••a.1a/.w t•-.1 r..at 1a S1 A 1. a.1w•1 fir 11
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONNMENTALASSESSNIENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 1 of 10) • JII1p?1'1
Figure 2.2.7-2
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 313 490
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 314 491
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-3: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 2 of 10) 41 Area H
RANCHO CALIMESA
MOBILE HOME
PARK
LEGEND
OLT -
•81- -
LONG-TERM MEASUREMENT/
MODELED RECEIVER
SHORT-TERM MEASUREMENT/
MODELED RECEIVER
6Rna - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER
COMM - COMMERCIAL
$FR - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
MFR- MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE
- RIGHT OF AWAY
- NOISE STUDY AREAS
NOISE BARRIER - FEASIBLE AND MEETS DESIGN GOAL
NOISE BARRIER - FEASIBLE BUT DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL
NOISE BARRIER - NOT FEASIBLE NOR MEETS DESIGN GOAL
500' NOISE STUDY LIMITS
PROJECT IMPROVEMENT OMITS
STATER
BROS
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 19/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 2 of 10) OY:_0�2021 JN 1 9171
Figure 2.2.7-3
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 315 492
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 316 493
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-4: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 1 of 10) R102
0 ~�V
R1211ST15
LEGEND
OLT MO FD RM ECFI�VFR EMEN7/
!8T - SI-ORT-TERM MEASUREMENT!
MODELED RECEIVER
i Rxx - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER
COMM - COMMERCIAL NOISE EL4RRIER - FEASIBLE AND MEETS DESIGN GOAL SFR - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE -e-` NOISE BARRIER - FEASIBLE BLIT DOE NOT MEET DESIGN GOA! MFR - MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE . _p-, NOISE BARRIER - NOT FEASIBLE NOR MEETS DESIGN GOAL - RICHT OF AWAY SOO' NOISE $TUDY LIMITS
NOISE STUDY AREAS PROJECT IMPROVEMENT UMRS
--- ==` ; .--CHERRYVALLEYBLVD - -- _—
- ue— - E
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/0HERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 3 of 10) 08+.,AL21 Jr! 169''171
Figure 2.2.7.4
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 317 494
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 318 495
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-5: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 3 of 10) 1 RSIRMD
QLT LONG
ETERM
RECEIVER W ENT/ SFR - SPIGLE-FFMLY E3ENC£
MCOEL YFR- WLT1-FN. LY RESEIEWE
BT MODEM AECEIMEASUREMENT/
- FIGHT OF AWAY
• Rix - MODELER ONLY RECEIVER y„=„=„_,,,, NOISE STUDY AREAS ihis— 41)4114--
�r
R118
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 14/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 4 of 10) ,3,3,iC.' J; x•1 r,
Figure 2.2.7-5
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 319 496
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 320 497
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-6: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 4 of 10) • COMM
R118
0 R117/ST9
l
•
LEGEND
OLT - LONG-TERM MEASUREMENT/
MQOE= RECFJVER
6T - sHaRT-TERM LEAsuRENENT
MODELED IECEIAR
OR= - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER
r•
R129
R12815T1.1
COMM - COMMERCIAL v o NOISE BARRER FFb9E• F AND MEETS DESIGN BOLL SFR - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE NOISE FLAMER - EEL.= F RUT DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL MFR- MULTI-FAMLY RE.SEENCE NOISE BARRER NOT FFFAf•F NOR MEETS DESIGN GOAL RIG lir OF AWAY - 600' NCYVF STUDY MRS
- NOSE 571J DT AFIE.AS - PROJECT IMPROVER! ENT UNITS
.ar.•A.•i.•!!•ia.•at.=.•aA.TENfFAle SI.a■•-..Og.. e.mi•1r. e-•le..•1•..•. u
•
•
D U
U Q°
Cl ra n
-a
� P
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 5 of 10) 3, D." ::'l 11)!T
Figure 2.2.7-6
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 321 498
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 322 499
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-7 Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 5 of 10) ■•
velar•-••�•.:41r11r1' 1
+�`ir�'aleaal+jl +" + •+gar -
____
F
L 1_
�•r
!•. aer aleallae.a./�.1r•lal. arl Alf a.lar.�.•i•.a1.••r.l.1a/1ti1/r 1.r..M1.�.. S..a•110111•I.a14 - •-
-
R2A,
SFR O'
-- 5379 R21571\
5379 PP -A
� J
- f
FR34c ",-*"
,*"
R34d
•
ROBERTS RD
QLT - ED RE MEASUREMENT/
LIODEL CEVIal
SHORT TERM MEASUREMENT /
MOUFLLL3 FFCUVtH
�Aa - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER
�ST
COMM - COMI.ERCWL o—
RFR - S IGLE-FAMLY RESIDENCE
YFR- MUM-FA/ALT FESCQJC.E
- - FIGHT CF AWAY
- NOSE STUN' NLA2
NOISE BARRER - FEASIFIE AND MEETS DESIGN GOAL
NCASE BNRRER - FEASIBLE BUT DCEB NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL
NOISE BARRIER NOT FEASIBLE NOR MEETS OESIiN GOAL
- 5cBr NOISE STUDY LNDS
- YROJEOT IPFH0VFMENT UMR9
-►ta.•e I
+llwlalw•1IW./SPfI
tiled r••im..g• ram.I a e • Wil m•I a 1.a1•a•fMe•1_ 1• Ngssr Ft36/3T.5'
,et.1
1.0.•r.1..,-;11411114LIag a
la • g le a 1.m. r aslr
r le' 5401 ROW
•
R37 OOMM 1086
. ea•r abal•Me._r.7 , a..a na•rarrmela
INITIAL STIJDYIENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 6 of 10) Figure 2.2.7-7
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 323 500
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 324 501
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-8: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 6 of 10) R20 R21 R2
• k
R15 R22.__
R16 Rib 024 !
L. I a -7i 1.-.,
rl #
• y!R19 5
R1❑ R12 R13� j..
r a?',
� R14
�R51 R11 i ,. -;:.
ST2 ! i -- 'i R91_-`
ST31
R3Db
.1 54011 —
pp-B,X„
iROyy - "0"mo*.,..,,,�,,, ,..c
`5401 E�Aq
� �� - ._
. '.!...i -.+se,
Area D
•
R39b
O
•
R39c
\ •
R39e.
R39#
4J �r sip•;••s
EOEND
COMM - COMMERCIAL - NOISE PARRIED - FEASIBLE AND MEETS DESIGN GOAL
NOISE STWY AREAS PROJECT IMPROVEMENT LIMITS
is%
OLT - LONGTERM MEASUREMENT/
MODFI FD RECEIVER
®6T - SHORT-TERM MEASUREMENT /
MODELED RECENER
•Rxx - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER
SFR - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE $ NOISE BARRIER - FEASIBLE BUT DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL MFR- MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE _�_„ - NOISE BARRIER - NOT FEASIBLE NOR MEETS DESIGN GOAL RIGHT OF AWAY 500' NOISE STUDY LIMBS
•
�` `--R32/ST4_.:
STATER
BROS
Area H
•
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 7 of 10) ,2011 J1•1169171
Figure 2.2.7-8
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 325 502
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 326 503
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-9: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 7 of 10) LEGEND
OLT - LONGTERM MEASUREMENT/
MODE! FD RFCFIVFR
SST - SHORT-TERM MEASUREMENT /
MODELED RECEIVER
•Rxx - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER
R103
•
R104
R114
SFR Area. F
R115
•
8110
•
R111
COMM - COMMERCIAL --0-0— NOISE BARRIER - FEASIBLE AND MEETS DESIGN GOAL
SFR - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE NOISE BARRIER - FEASIBLE DLJT DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL MFR- MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE - _n_ NOISE BARRIER - NOT FEASIBLE NOR MEETS DESIGN GOAL - RIGHT OF AWAY 500' NOISE STUDY LIMITS
NOISE STUDY AREAS PROJECT IMPROVEMENT UMTFS
DEL
TACO
R121/ST15
• ; nif
Lbw -
L.- 2-
CHERR_Y_VALLEY BL-VL —
R116e
. il •.��� .�.�{."�
II
R116d
II
R116c
R1161)
R116a
0 •
•
R1281ST11
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 8 of 10)
08.V.,21r1 JI 1(191!1
Figure 2.2.7-9
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 327 504
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 328 505
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-10: Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 8 of 10) R32/5T4
'SFR
CHERi4Y VALII EY BL VFD
- ' R116e
R116d
•
R116c
R11emi
LEGEND COMM - OOADADRCIAL --0-0,- NOSE BARRER - FEASE E AW WETS EESIGN GOAL OLT - LONG-TERM SESSUREAENf / SFR - Ef 3LE-FANLY RESIDENCE —411--- NOISE DER - FEPSAILE BUT DOES NOT MEET DESIGN nag_ MODELED RECEIVER NFR- hlILTFFAF9LT RES E _•-
®ST - SHORT-TERM ME0.5URFJMFM/ _a- NOISE EARRER NOT F1EASBLE NOR MEETS DESIGN F3OPL MOLALEJ RECLIVER - RlGFir of AWAY - SOU NOSE STUDY OATS en. - MODELED ONLY RECEIVER .••.••.••.•.. - NOISE STUDY ARM - PROJECT IMPROWMEN1 UMDS IR118
P! COMM
J
1 1
i
1 INITIAL STUDYIENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRYVALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 9 of 10) Figure 2.2.7-10
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 329 506
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 330 507
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.7-11 Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 9 of 10) C]
R11715T9
5.436 ROW
r,r 16' 5436 PP 16'
.; 1 SFR129
R•
R128IST11
LEGEND
Q LT - LONG -TEAM MEASUREMENT/
MODELED RECEIVER
*Si - SMODELE FIEGEM NER ssuENr!
Riot - MODEL E ONLY RECOVER
coMM-
SFR -
COMMERCIAL
-S LE -F LY FESIOENCE
MFR- MULTI-FAMRY RESOENGE
— - - FIGHT OF AWAY
. - NOISE STUDY AREAS
NOISE BARRER - FROMM F AND MEETS DESGN GOAL
NOISE 6 J R - FEASIBLE BUT DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GOAL
NOISE BARREN - NOT FEASIBLE NOR MEETS DESIGN GOAL
50d' NOISE STUDY MFG
PROJECT IMPROVEMENT uMRB
elm..-.ar..-.arfa=ll r1.aMf.Im. ■ Aal=■• A a•a..411a•. 1Maa_1 laaa_..A.I MMIDI
R1331
LT241
R12Ua
,R135
SFR R136
8137 •
R13815T12
5 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTERSTATE 10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise Measurement, Modeled Receiver, and Soundwall Locations (Sheet 10 of 10) Figure 2.2.7-11
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 331 508
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 332 509
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Area C: Area C is located north of 1-10 and west of Cherry Valley Boulevard. This area contains two single-family residences (Activity Category B) and undeveloped, unpermitted land (Activity Category G). This area is generally flat with one of the residences positioned on an approximate 15 -foot high hill. 1-10 is approximately the same elevation relative to these land uses. There are no noise barriers located or topographic shielding occurring between the roadway and these land uses. • Area D: Area D is located south of 1-10 and east of Singleton Road. This area contains undeveloped, unpermitted land (Activity Category G). This area is generally flat where 1-10 is slightly elevated relative to this area and there are no noise barriers located or topographic shielding occurring between the roadway and this land use. • Area E: Area E is located south of 1-10, west of Cherry Valley Boulevard, and north of Roberts Road. This area contains undeveloped, unpermitted land (Activity Category G). While there are future plans for a potential commercial and residential development, the plans have yet to be permitted. This area contains rolling hills that are elevated relative to 1-10. There are no noise barriers located or topographic shielding occurring between the roadway and this land use. • Area F: Area F is located in the southwest corner of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Roberts Road. This area contains single-family residences (Activity Category B). This area is generally flat and at grade with local roadways in this area. No noise barriers are located, or topographic shielding occurs between the roadways and the land.
There is however a development wall along the property lines adjacent to Cherry Valley Boulevard as well as Roberts Road.
• Area G: Area G is located north of 1-10 and east of Cherry Valley Boulevard. This area contains a commercial establishment with an outdoor seating area (Activity Category E) and undeveloped, unpermitted land (Activity Category G). This area is generally flat with rolling hills located adjacent to 1-10 providing some shielding of the land further north. No noise barriers are located between the roadway and these land uses. • Area H: Area H is located south of 1-10 and east of Cherry Valley Boulevard. This area contains commercial establishments with and without outdoor use areas (Activity Category E) as well as retail facilities (Activity Category F). This area is generally flat where 1-10 is slightly depressed compared to the land. No noise barrier is located, or topographic shielding occurs between the roadway and the commercial/retail land uses.
• Area 1: Area 1 is located south of 1-10, east of Cherry Valley Boulevard, and south of Desert Lawn Drive. This area contains single-family residences (Activity Category B).
This area is generally flat and at grade with local roadways in this area. No noise barriers are located, or topographic shielding occurs between the roadways and the residential land use. There is however a development wall along the property lines adjacent to Desert Lawn Drive as well as the western property line. • Area J: Area J is located south of 1-10, east of Cherry Valley Boulevard, and south of Desert Lawn Drive. This area contains single-family residences (Activity Category B).
This area is generally flat with the eastern end of area depressed in relation to Desert Lawn Drive. The land is elevated relative to 1-10 in this area. There are no noise Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 333 510
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures barriers located or topographic shielding occurring between the roadway and the residential land use.
• Area K: Area K is located south of 1-10 and at the southeast corner of Desert Lawn Drive and Plantation Drive. This area contains single-family residences (Activity Category B). This area is generally flat where 1-10 is at grade relative to this area. No noise barriers are located between the roadways and the residential land use. There is however an approximate four -foot tall berm between the residences and Desert Lawn Drive.
Short -Term Monitoring
Short-term noise measurements were conducted at 15 locations between September 1st through 3rd and on September 15th, 2021. Specific measurement sites were chosen to be representative of acoustically distinct areas, based on their relationship to the 1-10 and Cherry Valley Boulevard facilities and the varying topographic features between the areas and the roadways. Measurements occurred for in 10 -minute intervals. These measurements were taken during daytime hours when traffic was free flowing.
Locations of each Activity Category can be viewed in Figures 2.2.7-2 to 2.2.7-11.
Table 2.2.7-2, Short -Term Noise Measurement Results, summarizes the results of the short-term noise monitoring conducted in the project area. All 15 short-term measurements were conducted for the purpose of calibrating the TNM 2.5 computer noise model, which was then used to evaluate the existing noise environment.
Calibration sites were chosen for the major roadway segments affected by the proposed project that were representative of receiver locations. The traffic volumes were recorded with a video camera, and highway traffic speeds were recorded with a radar gun. Traffic counts were tabulated according to five vehicle types: automobiles, medium trucks (two - axle with six -tires), heavy trucks (three or more axle), buses, and motorcycles. As a general rule, the noise model is considered to be calibrated if the field measured noise levels versus the modeled noise levels (using field -collected traffic data) are less than 3 dB of each other. If differences are 3 dB or higher, refinement of the noise model is performed until there is agreement between the two values. If, after thorough reevaluation, calibration still cannot be achieved due to complex topography or other unusual circumstances, then a calibration constant is added such that the measured versus modeled values agree before any predictions can be made with the model. As shown in Table 2.2.7-4, Noise Model Calibration Results, short-term measurements did not result in noise level differences that were greater than 3 dB. As such, calibration adjustments were not required.
Table 2.2.7-2: Short -Term Noise Measurement Results
Item 9.
Site
Number
Street
Address, City
Area
Land
Use
Activity
Category/
(NAC)
Meter
Location
Measurement
Dates
Start
Time
Measured
Leq(h),
dBA4
ST1
9950 Calimesa
Blvd., Calimesa
A
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/03/2020
9:50
71 ST1
9950 Calimesa
Blvd., Calimesa
A
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/03/2020
10:00
72 Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 334 511
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Site
Number
Street
Address, City
Area
Land
Use
Activity
Category/
(NAC)
Meter
Location
Measurement
Dates
Start
Time
Measured
Leq(h),
dBA4
ST2
10320 Calimesa
Blvd., Unit 91,
Calimesa
B
MH
B (67)
Side Yard
9/01/2020
11:10
69 ST2
10320 Calimesa
Blvd., Unit 91,
Calimesa
B
MH
B (67)
Side Yard
9/01/2020
11:20
69 ST3
10320 Calimesa
Blvd., Unit 2,
Calimesa
B
MH
B (67)
Back Yard
9/01/2020
11:10
63 ST3
10320 Calimesa
Blvd., Unit 2,
Calimesa
B
MH
B (67)
Back Yard
9/01/2020
11:20
63 ST4
10400 Calimesa
Blvd., Calimesa
C
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/01/2020
10:30
58 ST4
10400 Calimesa
Blvd., Calimesa
C
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/01/2020
10:40
58 ST5
10410 Roberts
Rd., Calimesa
D
COM
E (72)
Empty Lot
9/15/2020
9:30
64 ST5
10410 Roberts
Rd., Calimesa
D
COM
E (72)
Empty Lot
9/15/2020
9:40
64 ST6
Old Roberts
Rd., Calimesa
E
UND
G (--)
Empty Lot
9/15/2020
9:30
_
74 ST6
Old Roberts
Rd., Calimesa
E
UND
G (--)
Empty Lot
9/15/2020
9:40
73 ST7
1076 Poinsettia
Circle,
Calimesa
F
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
09/03/2020
10:00
56 ST7
1076 Poinsettia
Circle,
Calimesa
F
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
09/03/2020
11:00
55 ST8
36240 Cherry
Creek Rd.,
Calimesa
C
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/03/2020
11:50
60 ST8
36240 Cherry
Creek Rd.,
Calimesa
C
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/03/2020
12:00
59 ST9
36233 Cherry
Valley Blvd.,
Calimesa
G
UND
G (--)
Empty Lot
9/02/2020
13:20
63 ST9
36233 Cherry
Valley Blvd.,
Calimesa
G
UND
G (--)
Empty Lot
9/02/2020
13:30
63 ST10
1180 Raven Ct.,
Calimesa
1 SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
11:40
52 ST10
1180 Raven Ct.,
Calimesa
1 SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
12:00
52 Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 335 512
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Site
Number
Street
Address, City
Area
Land
Use
Activity
Category/
(NAC)
Meter
Location
Measurement
Dates
Start
Time
Measured
Leq(h),
dBA4
ST11
701 Desert
Lawn Dr.,
Calimesa
J
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
11:40
60 ST11
701 Desert
Lawn Dr.,
Calimesa
J
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
12:00
60 ST12
17 Peachtree
Lane, Calimesa
K
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
10:20
53 ST12
17 Peachtree
Lane, Calimesa
K
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
10:40
52 ST13
1 Plantation,
Calimesa
K
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
10:20
56 ST13
1 Plantation,
Calimesa
K
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
10:40
55 ST14
25 Peachtree
Lane, Calimesa
K
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
10:20
68 ST14
25 Peachtree
Lane, Calimesa
K
SFR
B (67)
Back Yard
9/02/2020
10:40
66 ST15
1012 Cherry
Valley Blvd,
Calimesa
H
COM
E (72)
Parking
Lot
9/02/2020
14:00
56 ST15
1012 Cherry
Valley Blvd,
Calimesa
H
COM
E (72)
Parking
Lot
9/02/2020
14:10
56 Notes: 1. ST — Short -Term Measurements.
2. Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — mobile home, COM — commercial; UND — undeveloped land.
3. Measurement duration is 10 minutes.
4. dBA-A-weighted decibels.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Long -Term Monitoring
Long-term noise measurements were conducted at two locations for over 24 -hour durations between September 1st and 2nd, 2020 to observe hourly noise distribution.
Locations of each measurement are shown in Figures 2.2.7-2 to 2.2.7-11. Table 2.2.7-3, Long -Term Noise Measurement Results, summarizes the long-term monitoring results and includes the addresses and land use types of each monitoring location.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 336 513
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-3: Long -Term Noise Measurement Results
Item 9.
Site
Number'
Street
Address,
City
Area
Land
Use2
Activity
Category/
(NAC)
Meter
Location
Measurement
Dates
Start
Time
Duration
(Hours)
Measured
Worst-
Hour
Leq(h),
dBA3
Peak -
Hour
Time
LT1
10320
Calimesa
Blvd, Unit
2,
Calimesa
B
MH
B (67)
Back
Yard
9/01/2020 —
9/02/2020
9:20
30 69
06:00
LT2
82378
Crest
Ave,
Indio
K
SFR
B (67)
Back
Yard
9/01/2020 —
9/02/2020
8:51
31 70
06:00
Notes: 1 LT — Long -Term Measurements.
2. Land Use: SFR — single-family residence.
3. Measured Worst Hour— Measured Noise Levels (in dBA) during peak hour traffic.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021)
Table 2.2.7-4: Noise Model Calibration Results
Site
Number
Noise
Study Area4
Date
Start
Time
Noise Levels,
Leq (h) dBA
(Measured)
Noise Levels,
Leq (h) dBA
(Modeled)
Measured
Minus
Modeled, dB
Applied
Adjustment2,
dB
ST1
A
9/03/20
9:50
71 69
2 --
ST2
B
9/01/20
11:10
69 70
-1
--
ST3
B
9/01/20
11:10
63 65
-2
--
ST4
C
9/01/20
10:30
58 61
-3
--
ST5
D
9/15/20
9:40
64 67
-3
--
ST6
E
9/15/20
9:40
73 71
2 --
ST7
F
9/03/20
11:00
55 54
1 --
ST8
C
9/03/20
11:50
60 60
0 --
ST9
G
9/02/20
13:20
63 62
1 --
ST10
1 9/02/20
12:00
52 55
-3
--
ST11
J
9/02/20
12:00
60 63
-3
--
ST12
K
9/02/20
10:20
53 56
-3
--
ST13
K
9/02/20
10:20
56 67
-1
--
ST14
K
9/02/20
10:20
68 68
0 --
ST15
H
9/02/20
14:10
56 55
1 --
Notes: 1. Measured noise levels were measured for a period of 10 minutes.
2. Adjustment factor (K -Factor) is applied to receptors represented by measurement site when deviation is greater than +/- 3 dB. No adjustments are required.
3. ST —Short Term Measurements.
4. Noise Study Areas can be viewed in Figures 2.2.7-2 through 2.2.7-11.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 337 514
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Project improvements and associated construction activities would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not result in temporary noise impacts associated with the project.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Short-term noise would result from the construction activities that may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Table 2.2.7-5 summarizes noise levels produced by construction equipment commonly used on roadway construction projects. As shown, equipment involved in construction is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 80 to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
Noise produced by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance.
Table 2.2.7-5: Construction Equipment Noise
Equipment
Maximum Noise Level (dBA)
Scrapers
89 Bulldozers
85 Heavy Trucks
88 Backhoe
80 Pneumatic Tools
85 Concrete Pump
82 Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Construction activities associated with Build Alternatives 3 and 4 could expose residential, commercial, and undeveloped uses to temporary noise levels of up to approximately 89 dBA. However, construction -related noise associated with Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would be temporary and would cease upon project completion.
Additionally, construction would comply with the Caltrans Standard Specification Section 14-8.02, which would require noise levels from construction activities to not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from 9 PM to 6 AM. Under Caltrans Standard Specification Section 14-8.02, combustion engines would be equipped with appropriate mufflers to minimize noise generation. By adhering to Caltrans Standard Specifications, temporary noise impacts would not result in adverse effects in this regard.
Permanent Effects
The project is considered a Type 1 project under 23 CFR 772, as it entails a "proposed federal or federal aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, which changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through -traffic lanes." Type projects are required to consider noise abatement measures if forecasted traffic volumes would result in a substantial increase in noise levels for sensitive land uses.
Level of service (LOS) C and design year 2045 forecasted traffic volumes were used to Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 338 515
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures predict traffic noise levels and analyze noise impacts at receivers located within the project area.
To determine traffic -related noise associated with the project, traffic noise modeling analysis was conducted. Future noise levels were modeled and analyzed for both the existing and design -year with -project conditions under Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Noise levels were analyzed at the following Build Alternative locations along roadways in the study area: edge of shoulder (EOS) of the roadway, within right of way (ROW), and on private property under existing conditions (2019) and design year (2045) conditions.
The project would result in a traffic noise impact if either the traffic noise level at a sensitive receiver location is predicted to "approach or exceed" the established NAC for the sensitive receiver's Activity Category, or if the predicted traffic noise level is 12 dBA or more than the NAC. Traffic noise modeling analysis was developed to determine the traffic -related noise attributed to the project for the No -Build and Build Alternatives using TNM 2.5 computer modeling. Location of the sensitive receivers are shown in Figures
2.2.7-1 to 2.2.7-10 above, and the results of this analysis are presented in Tables 2.2.7- 6 to 2.2.7-11.
No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard improvements would not occur; however, surrounding planned projects would continue to be developed. For each land use within the project area (single-family residential, mobile homes, commercial, and undeveloped uses), the predicted design -year traffic noise levels under the No -Build Alternative are compared to the predicted design -year (2045) conditions without the project using additional sensitive receivers to determine if a substantial noise increase would occur. The results of this analysis are presented in Tables 2.2.7-6 to 2.2.7-11. Single-family residential uses are considered to be Category B land uses, and are located in outdoor activity areas A, C, F, I, J, and K of the project area. The NAC for Category B land uses under these areas is 67 dBA Leq. Under the No Build Alternative, the predicted design year traffic noise levels with the project ranges from 45 to 71 dBA and would exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq. As such, there would be a substantial increase in noise for this land use under the No -Build Alternative. • Mobile Homes are considered to be Category B land uses, and are located in outdoor activity Aarea B of the project area. Under the No Build Alternative, the predicted design year traffic noise levels with the project ranges from 61 to 72 dBA Leq and would exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq. As such, there would be a substantial increase in noise for this land use.
• Commercial uses are considered to be Category E land uses, and are located in outdoor activity areas D, G, and H of the project area. The NAC for Category E land uses under these areas is 72 dBA Leq. Under the No Build Alternative, the predicted design year traffic noise levels with the project ranges from 53 to 65 dBA Leq and would not approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq or result in a substantial increase in noise.
• Undeveloped land is considered to be a Category G land use. Properties are located in outdoor activity areas D, E, and G of the project area. Under 23 CFR 772, there is Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 339 516
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures no noise abatement criteria for this category. Under the No Build Alternative, the predicted design year traffic noise levels with the project ranges from 62 to 74 dBA. As such, consideration of noise abatement is not required for this land use.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured into either a diverging diamond interchange (Build Alternative 3) or a partial cloverleaf configuration (Build Alternative 4). Both Build Alternatives would additionally involve widening Cherry Valley Boulevard into a two-lane roadway.
Similarly, to the No -Build Alternative, the predicted design -year traffic noise levels under both Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are compared to the predicted design -year (2045) conditions without the project using additional sensitive receivers to determine if a substantial noise increase would occur. Additionally, future design -year noise levels on adjacent properties at various distances from the edge of traveled way (ETW) where noise levels would "approach" (i.e., are within one dB of) or exceed the applicable NAC for properties adjacent to the project limits. Location of the sensitive receivers are shown in Figures 2.2.7-2 to 2.2.7-11 above, and the results of this analysis are presented in Tables 2.2.7-6 to 2.2.7-11.
Build Alternative 3
Area A: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate traffic noise levels at the single-family residence (Category B) are predicted to be in the range of 71 to 72 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 3. For of Category B land uses in this area that are adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC within 200 to 600 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year would range from 2 to 3 dB. There is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses and the Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise. However, the predicted noise levels in the design year would exceed the required NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and traffic noise impacts are expected to occur at the residence.
As such, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Area B: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the mobile homes (Category B) in Area B are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 74 dBA Leq in the design year under Alternative 3. The results also indicate that the noise between existing conditions and the design year would increase by 1 to 3 dB. The Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise.
However, the predicted noise levels in the design year would approach and exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses, traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area B. Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Area C: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the single-family residences (Category B) in Area C would be in the range of 62 to 63 dBA Leq at the residences the design year under Build Alternative
3. For Category B land uses in this area that are adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 200 to 600 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 340 517
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures in undeveloped lands would be 2dB. There is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses and the Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise.
Lastly, the predicted noise levels in the design year exceed the required NAC of 67 dBA Leq for single family residences in the area. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area C.
Area D: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses (Category C) in Area D is predicted to be 65 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 3. Noise levels would approach the NAC of Category C at a range of 200 to 500 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year in undeveloped lands would be 2 dB. There is no noise abatement criterion for Activity Category G and the Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise, nor would the predicted noise levels in the design year exceed the required NAC of 67 dBA Leq for single family residences in the area. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area D.
Area E: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the undeveloped lands in Area E are predicted to be 74 dBA Leq in the design year under Alternative 3. For Categories B and C land uses adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 100 to 700 feet. For Category E land uses adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range between 100 and 200 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to be 2 dB. There is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses, and the Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area E.
Area F: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the single-family residences in Area F range from 43 to 55 dBA Leq in the design year under Alternative 3. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range between 1 and 9 dB. The large increase in noise in the design year would be due to the substantial increase in traffic volume on Roberts Road. However, the predicted noise levels in the design year would not approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and a substantial increase in noise would not occur. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area F.
Area G: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at a commercial establishment in Area G are predicted to be 64 dBA Leq in the design year under Alternative 3. For Category C land uses adjacent to the Build Alternative limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 100 to 500 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to be 2 dB. However, the predicted noise level in the design year would not approach or exceed the NAC of 72 dBA Leq at the commercial establishment, and there is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area G.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 341 518
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Area H: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the commercial establishments in Area H predicted to be in the range of 54 to 60 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 3. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 2 to 4 dB. The predicted noise levels in the design year would not approach or exceed the NAC of 72 dBA Leq for Category E land uses and a substantial increase in noise would not occur. As such, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area H.
Area I: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at one single-family residence in Area I are predicted to be in the range of 54 to 56 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 3. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range between 0 and 1 dB. The decrease in traffic noise levels between no - build conditions and build conditions is due to a decrease in traffic volumes on Desert Lawn Drive. The predicted noise levels in the design year would not approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and a substantial increase in noise would not occur. As such, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area I.
Area J: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the single-family residences in Area J are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 71 dBA Leq in the design year under Alternative 3. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 2 to 3 dB. The Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise; however, the predicted noise levels in the design year would approach and exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B and Category C land uses, traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area K. Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Area K: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-6 through 2.2.7-8 indicate that traffic noise levels at the single-family residences and the Planation by the Lake in Area K are predicted to be in the range of 55 to 70 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 3. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 1 to 4 dB. The Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise. However, the predicted noise levels in the design year are would approach and exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B and Category C land uses, traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area K.
Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Build Alternative 4
Area A: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 through 2.2.7-11 indicate that traffic noise levels at one single-family residence in Area A are predicted to be in the range of 71 to 72 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. For Category B land uses adjacent to the Build Alternative limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 400 to 600 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 2 to 3 dB. While there is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 342 519
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures and while the Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise, the predicted noise levels in the design year would exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur at the residence.
Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Area B: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the mobile homes in Area B are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 74 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. The results also indicate that the noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to increase by 1 to 3 dB. The Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise. However, the predicted noise levels in the design year are predicted to approach and exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses, traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area B. Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Area C: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the single-family residence in Area C are predicted to be 62 dBA Leq at the residence in the design year under Build Alternative 4. For Category B land uses adjacent to the Build Alternative limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 300 to 600 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to be 2 dB. The predicted noise levels in the design year are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and there is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area C.
Area D: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the commercial establishment in Area D are predicted to be 65 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. For Category C land uses adjacent to the Build Alternative limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 200 to 500 feet. For Category E land uses adjacent to the project site, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range between 100 and 300 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to be 2 dB. The predicted noise levels in the design year would not approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category E land uses and there is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area C.
Area E: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the noise measurement site located within undeveloped lands (Activity Category G) in Area E is predicted to be 74 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 3. For Categories B and C land uses adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 100 to 700 feet. For Category E land uses adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range between 100 and 200 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is would 2 dB. There is no noise abatement criterion for Activity Category G, and the Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in Area E.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 343 520
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Area F: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the single-family residences in Area F are predicted to be in the range of 45 to 59 dBA Leq in the design year under Alternative 4. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range between 1 and 9 dB. The large increase in noise in the design year is due to the substantial increase in traffic volume on Roberts Road. The predicted noise levels in the design year are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and a substantial increase in noise would not occur. As such, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area F.
Area G: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels a commercial establishment in Area D are predicted to be 64 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. For Category C land uses adjacent to the project limits, noise levels would approach the NAC at a range of 100 to 500 feet from the ETW. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to be 2 dB. The predicted noise level in the design year is not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC of 72 dBA Leq at the commercial establishment and there is no noise abatement criterion for Category G land uses.
Therefore, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in Area G.
Area H: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels the commercial establishments in Area H are predicted to be in the range of 54 to 60 dBA. Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 2 to 4 dB. The predicted noise levels in the design year are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC of 72 dBA Leq for Category E land uses and a substantial increase in noise would not occur. As such, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area H.
Area I: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the single-family residences in Area I is predicted to be in the range of 54 to 56 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range between 0 and 1 dB. The decrease in traffic noise levels between no -build conditions and build conditions is due to a decrease in traffic volumes on Desert Lawn Drive. The predicted noise levels in the design year are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses, and a substantial increase in noise would not occur. As such, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area I.
Area J: The traffic noise modeling results in Tables 2.2.7-9 and 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the single-family residences in Area J are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 71 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 2 to 3 dB. The Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise, the predicted noise levels in the design year are predicted to exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B land uses and traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur at one of the residences. Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 344 521
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Area K: The traffic noise modeling results between Tables 2.2.7-9 through 2.2.7-11 indicate traffic noise levels at the single-family residences in Area K are predicted to be in the range of 55 to 70 dBA Leq in the design year under Build Alternative 4. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design year is predicted to range from 1 to 3 dB. The Build Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in noise. However, the predicted noise levels in the design year are predicted to approach and exceed the NAC of 67 dBA Leq for Category B and Category C land uses, traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area K. Therefore, noise abatement is considered for this area.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 345 522
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-6: Predicted Future Noise Levels and Barrier Analysis at Edge of Shoulder — Alternative 3 Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use2
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq (h)
(dBA)1
Predicte
d No-
Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No -
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
A
R25
S379 EOS
SFR
--
70 71
72 1
1 B (67)
A/E
A
R2A
S379 EOS
SFR
1 68
70 71
2 1
B (67)
NE
B
R5
S401 EOS
MH
1 71
72 73
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R6
S401 EOS
MH
1 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R7
S401 EOS
MH
2 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R8
S401 EOS
MH
1 73
74 74
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R9
S401 EOS
MH
1 66
67 67
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R10
S401 EOS
MH
1 68
69 69
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R11
S401 EOS
MH
1 66
67 69
1 2
B (67)
A/E
B
R12
S401 EOS
MH
1 66
67 69
1 2
B (67)
A/E
B
R13
S401 EOS
MH
1 65
66 67
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R14
S401 EOS
MH
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R15
S401 EOS
MH
2 64
66 66
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R16
S401 EOS
MH
2 62
64 65
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R17
S401 EOS
MH
2 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R18
S401 EOS
MH
2 62
64 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R19
S401 EOS
MH
2 63
64 64
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
B
R20
S401 EOS
MH
2 62
63 64
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R21
S401 EOS
MH
2 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R22
S401 EOS
MH
2 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R23
S401 EOS
MH
2 61
62 63
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R24
S401 EOS
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R25
S401 EOS
MH
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R26
S401 EOS
MH
1 58
60 61
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R27
S401 EOS
MH
1 69
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R28
S401 EOS
MH
1 60
61 62
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R29
S401 EOS
MH
1 63
64 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R32
--
SFR
1 61
63 63
2 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R33
--
SFR
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 346 523
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leg (h)
(dBA)1
Predicte
d No-
Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No -
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
D
R36
--
UND
1 67
68 69
1 1
G (--)
NONE
D
R37
--
COM
1 63
64 65
1 1
E (72)
NONE
E
R40
--
UND
1 72
74 74
2 0
G (--)
NONE
F
R102
--
SFR
1 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R103
--
SFR
2 49
58 58
9 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R104
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R105
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R106
--
SFR
2 51
57 58
6 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R107
--
SFR
1 55
58 59
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R108
--
SFR
1 55
57 57
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R109
--
SFR
2 54
56 56
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R110
--
SFR
2 52
54 55
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R111
--
SFR
1 52
54 54
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R112
--
SFR
1 53
54 54
1 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R113
--
SFR
4 43
45 45
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R114
--
SFR
1 47
50 51
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R115
--
SFR
3 45
47 47
2 0
B (67)
NONE
G
R117
--
UND
1 62
63 65
1 2
G (--)
NONE
G
R118
--
COM
1 62
62 64
0 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1214
--
COM
1 56
58 60
2 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1224
--
COM
1 52
53 54
11 1
E (72)
NONE
I
R123
--
SFR
2 53
55 54
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R124
--
SFR
2 54
55 55
1 0
B (67)
NONE
I
R125
--
SFR
2 54
56 55
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R126
--
SFR
2 56
57 56
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R127
--
SFR
1 55
57 56
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
J
R1285
EOS
SFR
--
63 65
66 2
1 B (67)
NONE
J
R129
EOS
SFR
1 69
70 71
1 1
B (67)
NE
J
R131
SFR
1 58
60 60
2 0
B 67
NONE
K
R132
S452
REC
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132A
S452
REC
1 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 347 524
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicte
d No-
Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No -
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
K
R132B
S452
REC
1 63
66 66
3 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R133
S452
SFR
1 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R134
S452
SFR
2 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R135
S452
SFR
3 67
69 69
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R136
S452
SFR
1 65
66 66
1 0
B (67)
NE
K
R137
S452
SFR
1 59
60 61
1 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R138
S452
SFR
1 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R139
S452
SFR
1 57
60 60
3 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R140
S452
SFR
2 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R142
S452
SFR
1 53
55 55
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R143
S452
SFR
1 56
58 60
2 2
B (67)
NONE
Notes: 1. Leq(h) are A -weighted, peak hour noise levels in decibels. 2 Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — Mobile Home, REC - Recreational; COM — Commercial.
3. S = Substantial Increase (12 dBA or more); A/E = Approach or exceed NAC.
4. There are no outdoor use areas at this commercial land use.
5. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and was not located at the outdoor use area; however, this site is representative of adjacent outdoor use area.
6. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and would not represent a noise sensitive site under future conditions.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 348 525
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-7: Predicted Future Noise Levels and Barrier Analysis at Right -of -Way — Alternative 3 Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use2
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h) (dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
A
R25
S379 EOS
SFR
--
70 71
72 1
1 B (67)
A/E
A _
R2A
S379 ROW
SFR
1 68
70 71
2 1
B (67)
NE
B
R5
S401 ROW
MH
1 71
72 73
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R6
S401 ROW
MH
1 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R7
S401 ROW
MH
2 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R8
S401 ROW
MH
1 73
774
74 1
0 B (67)
NE
B
R9
S401 ROW
MH
1 66
67 67
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R10
S401 ROW
MH
1 68
69 69
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R11
S401 ROW
MH
1 66
67 69
1 2
B (67)
NE
B
R12
S401 ROW
MH
1 66
67 69
1 2
B (67)
A/E
B
R13
S401 ROW
MH
1 65
66 67
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R14
S401 ROW
MH
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
NE
B
R15
S401 ROW
MH
2 64
66 66
2 0
B (67)
NE
B
R16
S401 ROW
MH
2 62
64 65
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R17
S401 ROW
MH
2 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R18
S401 ROW
MH
2 62
64 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R19
S401 ROW
MH
2 63
65 64
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
B
R20
S401 ROW
MH
2 62
63 64
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R21
S401 ROW
MH
2 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R22
S401 ROW
MH
2 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R23
S401 ROW
MH
2 61
62 63
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R24
S401 ROW
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R25
S401 ROW
MH
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R26
S401 ROW
MH
1 58
60 61
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R27
S401 ROW
MH
1 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R28
S401 ROW
MH
1 60
61 62
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R29
S401 ROW
MH
1 63
64 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R32
--
SFR
1 61
63 63
2 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R33
--
SFR
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 349 526
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h) (dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
D
R36
--
UND
1 67
68 69
1 1
G (--)
NONE
D
R37
--
COM
1 63
64 65
1 1
E (72)
NONE
E
R40
--
UND
1 72
74 74
2 0
G (--)
NONE
F
R102
--
SFR
1 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R103
--
SFR
2 49
58 58
9 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R104
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R105
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R106
--
SFR
2 51
57 58
6 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R107
--
SFR
1 55
58 59
3 1
B 67
NONE
F
R108
--
SFR
1 55
57 57
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R109
--
SFR
2 54
56 56
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R110
--
SFR
2 52
54 55
2 1
B 67
NONE
F
R111
--
SFR
1 52
54 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R112
--
SFR
1 53
54 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R113
--
SFR
4 43
45 45
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R114
--
SFR
1 47
50 51
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R115
--
SFR
3 45
47 47
2 0
B 67
NONE
G
R117
--
UND
1 62
63 65
1 2
G (--)
NONE
G
R118
--
COM
1 62
62 64
0 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1214
--
COM
1 56
58 60
2 2
E 72
NONE
H
R1224
--
COM
1 52
53 54
1 1
E (72)
NONE
I
R123
--
SFR
2 53
55 54
2 -1
B 67
NONE
I
R124
--
SFR
2 54
55 55
1 0
B (67)
NONE
I
R125
--
SFR
2 54
56 55
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R126
--
SFR
2 56
57 56
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R127
--
SFR
1 55
57 56
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
J
R1285
ROW
SFR
--
63 65
66 2
0 B (67)
NE
J
R129
ROW
SFR
1 69
70 71
1 0
B (67)
NE
J
R131
SFR
1 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132
S452
REC
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R132A
S452
REC
1 63
65 65
2 0
B 67
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 350 527
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h) (dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
K
R132B
S452
REC
1 63
66 66
3 0
B (67)
NE
K
R133
S452
SFR
1 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R134
S452
SFR
2 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R135
S452
SFR
3 67
69 69
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R136
S452
SFR
1 65
66 66
1 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R137
S452
SFR
1 59
60 61
1 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R138
S452
SFR
1 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R139
S452
SFR
1 57
60 60
3 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R140
S452
SFR
2 57
59 59
2 0
B 67
NONE
K
R142
S452
SFR
1 53
55 55
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R143
S452
SFR
1 56
58 60
2 2
B (67)
NONE
Notes: 1. Leq(h) are A -weighted, peak hour noise levels in decibels. 2 Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — Mobile Home, REC - Recreational; COM — Commercial.
3. S = Substantial Increase (12 dBA or more); A/E = Approach or exceed NAC.
4. There are no outdoor use areas at this commercial land use.
5. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and was not located at the outdoor use area; however, this site is representative of adjacent outdoor use area.
6. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and would not represent a noise sensitive site under future conditions.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 351 528
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-8: Predicted Future Noise Levels and Barrier Analysis at Private Property — Alternative 3 Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use2
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)1
Design
Year No-
Build Noise
Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
A
R25
S379 PP
SFR
--
70 71
72 1
1 B (67)
NE
A
R2A
S379 PP
SFR
1 68
70 71
2 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R5
S401 PP
MH
1 71
72 73
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R6
S401 PP
MH
1 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R7
S401 PP
MH
2 72
73 74
1 1
B 67
A/E
B
R8
S401 PP
MH
1 73
74 74
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R9
S401 PP
MH
1 66
67 67
1 0
B 67
A/E
B
R10
S401 PP
MH
1 68
69 69
1 0
B 67
A/E
B
R11
S401 PP
MH
1 66
67 69
1 2
B 67
A/E
B
R12
S401 PP
MH
1 66
67 69
1 2
B 67
A/E
B
R13
S401 PP
MH
1 65
66 67
1 1
B 67
A/E
B
R14
S401 PP
MH
1 65
67 67
2 0
B 67
A/E
B
R15
S401 PP
MH
2 64
66 66
2 0
B 67
NE
B
R16
S401 PP
MH
2 62
64 65
2 1
B 67
NONE
B
R17
S401 PP
MH
2 60
62 62
2 0
B 67
NONE
B
R18
S401 PP
MH
2 62
64 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R19
S401 PP
MH
2 63
65 64
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
B
R20
S401 PP
MH
2 62
63 64
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R21
S401 PP
MH
2 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R22
S401 PP
MH
2 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R23
S401 PP
MH
2 61
62 63
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R24
S401 PP
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R25
S401 PP
MH
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R26
S401 PP
MH
1 58
60 61
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R27
S401 PP
MH
1 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R28
S401 PP
MH
1 60
61 62
1 1
B (6J
NONE
B
R29
S401 PP
MH
1 63
64 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 352 529
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)1
Design
Year No-
Build Noise
Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type'
C
R32
--
SFR
1 61
63 63
2 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R33
--
SFR
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
D
R36
--
UND
1 67
68 69
1 1
G (--)
NONE
D
R37
--
COM
1 63
64 65
1 1
E (72)
NONE
E
R40
--
UND
1 72
74 74
2 0
G --
NONE
F
R102
--
SFR
1 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R103
--
SFR
2 49
58 58
9 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R104
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R105
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R106
--
SFR
2 51
57 58
6 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R107
--
SFR
1 55
58 59
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R108
--
SFR
1 55
57 57
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R109
--
SFR
2 54
5 56
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R110
--
SFR
2 52
54 55
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R111
--
SFR
1 52
54 54
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R112
--
SFR
1 53
54 54
1 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R113
--
SFR
4 43
45 45
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R114
--
SFR
1 47
50 51
3 1
B 67
NONE
F
R115
--
SFR
3 45
47 47
2 0
B (67)
NONE
G
R117
--
UND
1 62
63 65
1 2
G (--)
NONE
G
R118
--
COM
1 62
62 64
0 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1214
--
COM
1 56
58 60
2 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1224
--
COM
1 52
53 54
1 1
E (72)
NONE
I
R123
--
SFR
2 53
55 54
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R124
--
SFR
2 54
55 55
1 0
B (67)
NONE
I
R125
--
SFR
2 54
56 55
2 -1
B 67
NONE
I
R126
--
SFR
2 56
57 56
1 -1
B 67
NONE
I
R127
--
SFR
1 55
57 56
2 -1
B 67
NONE
J
R1285
S436 PP
SFR
--
63 65
66 2
-1
B 67
NE
J
R129
S436 PP
SFR
1 69
70 71
1 1
B 67
NE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 353 530
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)1
Design
Year No-
Build Noise
Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
J
R131
--
SFR
1 58
60 60
2 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R132
S452 PP
REC
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R132A
S401 PP
REC
1 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132B
S401 PP
REC
1 63
66 66
3 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R133
S401 PP
SFR
1 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R134
S401 PP
SFR
2 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R135
S401 PP
SFR
3 67
69 69
0 B (67)
A/E
K
R136
S401 PP
SFR
1 65
66 66
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R137
S401 PP
SFR
1 59
60 61
1 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R138
S401 PP
SFR
1 57
59 59
1 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R139
S401 PP
SFR
1 57
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R140
S401 PP
SFR
2 57
59 59
3 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R142
S401 PP
SFR
1 53
55 55
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R143
S401 PP
SFR
1 56
58 60
2 2
B (67)
NONE
Notes: 1. Leq(h) are A -weighted, peak hour noise levels in decibels. 2 Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — Mobile Home, REC - Recreational; COM — Commercial.
3. S = Substantial Increase (12 dBA or more); NE = Approach or exceed NAC.
4. There are no outdoor use areas at this commercial land use.
5. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and was not located at the outdoor use area; however, this site is representative of adjacent outdoor use area.
6. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and would not represent a noise sensitive site under future conditions.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 354 531
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-9: Predicted Future Noise Levels and Barrier Analysis at Edge of Shoulder - Alternative 4 Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use2
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise
Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted No-
Build Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
A
R25
S379 EOS
SFR
--
70 71
72 1
1 B (67)
A/E
A _
R2A
S379 EOS
SFR
1 6
70 71
2 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R5
S401 EOS
MH
1 71
72 72
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R6
S401 EOS
MH
1 72
73 73
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R7
S401 EOS
MH
2 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R8
S401 EOS
MH
1 73
74 74
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R9
S401 EOS
MH
1 66
67 67
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R10
S401 EOS
MH
1 68
69 69
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R11
S401 EOS
MH
1 66
67 68
1 1
B 67
NE
B
R12
S401 EOS
MH
1 66
67 68
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R13
S401 EOS
MH
1 65
66 67
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R14
S401 EOS
MH
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
NE
B
R15
S401 EOS
MH
2 64
66 66
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R16
S401 EOS
MH
2 62
64 65
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R17
S401 EOS
MH
2 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R18
S401 EOS
MH
2 62
64 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R19
S401 EOS
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R20
--
MH
2 62
63 64
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R21
--
MH
2 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R22
--
MH
2 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R23
--
MH
2 61
62 63
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R24
--
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R25
--
MH
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R26
--
MH
1 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R27
--
MH
1 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R28
--
MH
1 60
61 62
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R29
--
MH
1 58
64 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R32
--
SFR
1 58
63 --
2 --
B (67)
C
R33
--
SFR
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 355 532
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise
Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted No-
Build Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
D
R36
--
UND
1 67
68 69
1 1
G (--)
NONE
D
R37
--
COM
1 63
64 65
1 1
E (72)
NONE
E
R40
--
UND
1 72
74 74
2 0
G (--)
NONE
F
R102
--
SFR
1 79
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R103
--
SFR
2 49
58 58
9 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R104
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R105
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R106
--
SFR
2 51
57 58
6 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R107
--
SFR
1 55
58 59
3 1
B 67
NONE
F
R108
--
SFR
1 55
57 58
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R109
--
SFR
2 54
56 56
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R110
--
SFR
2 52
54 55
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R111
--
SFR
1 52
54 54
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R112
--
SFR
1 53
54 54
1 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R113
--
SFR
4 43
45 45
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R114
--
SFR
1 47
50 50
3 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R115
--
SFR
3 45
47 47
2 0
B (67)
NONE
G
R117
--
UND
1 62
63 64
1 1
G (--)
NONE
G
R118
--
COM
1 62
62 64
0 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1214
--
COM
1 56
58 60
2 1
E (72)
NONE
H
R1224
--
COM
1 52
53 54
1 -1
E (72)
NONE
I
R123
--
SFR
2 53
55 54
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R124
--
SFR
2 54
55 54
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R125
--
SFR
2 54
56 55
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R126
--
SFR
2 56
57 56
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R127
--
SFR
1 55
57 56
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
J
R1285
S452 EOS
SFR
--
63 65
66 2
1 B (67)
A/E
J
R129
S452 EOS
SFR
1 59
70 71
1 0
B 67
NE
J
R131
SFR
1 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132
S452 EOS
REC
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R132A
S452 EOS
REC
1 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 356 533
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number
of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise
Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted No-
Build Noise
Level with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design
Year Build
Noise Level
Minus No-
Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
K
R132B
S452 EOS
REC
1 63
66 66
3 0
B (67)
NE
K
R133
S452 EOS
SFR
1 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R134
S452 EOS
SFR
2 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R135
S452 EOS
SFR
3 67
69 69
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R136
S452 EOS
SFR
1 65
66 66
1 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R137
S452 EOS
SFR
1 59
61 61
1 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R138
S452 EOS
SFR
1 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R139
S452 EOS
SFR
1 57
60 60
3 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R140
S452 EOS
SFR
2 57
59 59
2 0
B 67
NONE
K
R142
S452 EOS
SFR
1 53
55 55
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R143
S452 EOS
SFR
1 56
58 59
2 1
B (67)
NONE
Notes: 1. Leq(h) are A -weighted, peak hour noise levels in decibels. 2 Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — Mobile Home, REC - Recreational; COM — Commercial.
3. S = Substantial Increase (12 dBA or more); A/E = Approach or exceed NAC.
4. There are no outdoor use areas at this commercial land use.
5. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and was not located at the outdoor use area; however, this site is representative of adjacent outdoor use area.
6. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and would not represent a noise sensitive site under future conditions.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 357 534
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-10: Predicted Future Noise Levels and Barrier Analysis at Right -of -Way — Alternative 4 Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use2
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design Year
Build Noise
Level Minus
No -Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
A
R25
S379 ROW
SFR
--
70 71
72 1
1 B (67)
A/E
A
R2A
S379 ROW
SFR
1 68
70 71
2 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R5
S401 ROW
MH
1 71
72 72
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R6
S401 ROW
MH
1 72
73 73
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R7
S401 ROW
MH
2 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R8
S401 ROW
MH
1 73
74 74
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R9
S401 ROW
MH
1 66
67 67
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R10
S401 ROW
MH
1 68
69 69
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R11
S401 ROW
MH
1 66
67 68
1 2
B (67)
A/E
B
R12
S401 ROW
MH
1 66
67 68
1 2
B (67)
A/E
B
R13
S401 ROW
MH
1 65
66 67
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R14
S401 ROW
MH
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R15
S401 ROW
MH
2 64
66 66
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R16
S401 ROW
MH
2 62
64 65
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R17
S401 ROW
MH
2 64
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R18
S401 ROW
MH
2 62
64 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R19
S401 ROW
MH
2 63
65 65
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
B
R20
S401 ROW
MH
2 62
63 64
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R21
S401 ROW
MH
2 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R22
S401 ROW
MH
2 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R23
S401 ROW
MH
2 61
62 63
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R24
S401 ROW 1
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R25
S401 ROW
MH
1 60
62 62
2 0
B 67
NONE
B
R26
S401 ROW
MH
1 58
60 61
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R27
S401 ROW
MH
1 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R28
S401 ROW
MH
1 60
61 62
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R29
S401 ROW
MH
1 63
64 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R32
--
SFR
1 61
63 63
2 0
B 67
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 358 535
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design Year
Build Noise
Level Minus
No -Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
C
R33
--
SFR
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
D
R36
--
UND
1 67
68 69
1 1
G (--)
NONE
D
R37
--
COM
1 73
64 65
1 1
E (72)
NONE
E
R40
--
UND
1 72
74 74
2 0
G (--)
NONE
F
R102
--
SFR
1 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R103
--
SFR
2 49
58 58
9 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R104
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R105
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R106
--
SFR
2 51
57 58
6 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R107
--
SFR
1 55
58 59
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R108
--
SFR
1 55
57 57
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R109
--
SFR
2 54
56 56
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R110
--
SFR
2 52
54 55
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R111
--
SFR
1 52
54 54
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R112
--
SFR
1 53
54 54
1 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R113
--
SFR
4 43
45 45
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R114
--
SFR
1 47
50 51
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R115
--
SFR
3 45
57 47
2 0
B (67)
NONE
G
R117
--
UND
1 62
63 65
1 2
G (--)
NONE
G
R118
--
COM
1 62
62 54
0 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1214
--
COM
1 56
58 60
2 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1224
--
COM
1 52
53 56
1 1
E (72)
NONE
I
R123
--
SFR
2 53
55 56
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R124
--
SFR
2 54
55 55
1 0
B (67)
NONE
I
R125
--
SFR
2 54
56 55
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R126
--
SFR
2 56
57 56
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R127
--
SFR
1 55
57 56
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
J
R1285
--
SFR
--
63 65
66 2
1 B (67)
A/E
J
R129
--
SFR
1 69
70 71
1 1
B (67)
A/E
J
R131
--
SFR
1 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132
--
REC
1 65
57 67
2 0
B (67)
NE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 359 536
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier I.D.
Land
Use'
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design Year
Build Noise
Level Minus
No -Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
K
R132A
--
REC
1 63
54 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132B
--
REC
1 63
55 66
3 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R133
--
SFR
1 _
68 70
70 2
0 B (67)
A/E
K
R134
--
SFR
2 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R135
--
SFR
3 67
69 69
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R136
--
SFR
1 65
66 66
1 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R137
--
SFR
1 59
60 61
1 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R138
SFR
1 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R139
SFR
1 57
60 60
3 0
B 67
NONE
K
R140
SFR
2 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R142
SFR
1 53
55 55
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R143
SFR
1 56
58 60
2 2
B 67
NONE
Notes: 1. Leq(h) are A -weighted, peak hour noise levels in decibels. 2 Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — Mobile Home, REC - Recreational; COM — Commercial.
3. S = Substantial Increase (12 dBA or more); NE = Approach or exceed NAC.
4. There are no outdoor use areas at this commercial land use.
5. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and was not located at the outdoor use area; however, this site is representative of adjacent outdoor use area.
6. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and would not represent a noise sensitive site under future conditions.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 360 537
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-11: Predicted Future Noise Levels and Barrier Analysis at Private Property - Alternative 4 Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier
I.D.
Land
Use2
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design Year
Build Noise
Level Minus
No -Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
A
R25
S379 PP
SFR
--
70 71
72 1
1 B (67)
A/E
A
R2A
S379 PP
SFR
1 68
70 71
2 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R5
S401 PP
MH
1 71
72 72
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R6
S401 PP
MH
1 72
73 73
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R7
S401 PP
MH
2 72
73 74
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R8
S401 PP
MH
1 73
74 74
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R9
S401 PP
MH
1 66
67 67
1 0
B (67)
NE
B
R10
S401 PP
MH
1 68
69 69
1 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R11
S401 PP
MH
1 66
67 68
1 1
B (67)
A/E
B
R12
S401 PP
MH
1 66
67 68
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R13
S401 PP
MH
1 65
66 67
1 1
B (67)
NE
B
R14
S401 PP
MH
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R15
S401 PP
MH
2 64
66 66
2 0
B (67)
A/E
B
R16
S401 PP
MH
2 62
64 65
2 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R17
S401 PP
MH
2 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R18
S401 PP
MH
2 62
64 64
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R19
S401 PP
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R20
S401 PP
MH
2 62
63 64
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R21
S401 PP
MH
2 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R22
S401 PP
MH
2 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R23
S401 PP
MH
2 61
62 63
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R24
S401 PP
MH
2 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R25
S401 PP
MH
1 60
62 62
2 0
B (67)
NONE
B
R26
S401 PP
MH
1 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 361 538
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier
I.D.
Land
Use'
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design Year
Build Noise
Level Minus
No -Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
B
R27
S401 PP
MH
1 58
59 60
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R28
S401 PP
MH
1 60
61 62
1 1
B (67)
NONE
B
R29
S401 PP
MH
1 63
64 64
1 0
B (67)
NONE
C
R32
--
SFR
1 61
63 --
2 --
B (67)
C
R33
--
SFR
1 60
62 62
2 0
B 67
NONE
D
R36
--
UND
1 67
66 69
1 1
G (--)
NONE
D
R37
--
COM
1 63
64 65
1 1
E (72)
NONE
E
R40
--
UND
1 72
74 74
2 0
G (--)
NONE
F
R102
--
SFR
1 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R103
--
SFR
2 49
58 58
9 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R104
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R105
--
SFR
2 49
57 57
8 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R106
--
SFR
2 51
57 58
8 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R107
--
SFR
1 55
58 59
3 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R108
--
SFR
1 55
57 58
2 1
B 67
NONE
F
R109
--
SFR
2 54
56 56
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R110
--
SFR
2 52
54 55
2 1
B (67)
NONE
F
R111
--
SFR
1 52
54 54
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R112
--
SFR
1 53
54 54
1 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R113
--
SFR
4 43
45 45
2 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R114
--
SFR
1 47
50 50
3 0
B (67)
NONE
F
R115
--
SFR
3 45
47 47
2 0
B (67)
NONE
G
R117
--
UND
1 62
63 64
1 0
G (--)
NONE
G
R118
--
COM
1 62
62 64
0 1
E (72)
NONE
H
R1214
--
COM
1 56
58 60
2 2
E (72)
NONE
H
R1224
--
COM
1 52
53 54
1 1
E (72)
NONE
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 362 539
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Item 9.
Study
Area
Receiver
I.D.
Barrier
I.D.
Land
Use'
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Existing
Noise Level
Leq(h)
(dBA)1
Predicted
No- Build
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Predicted
No -Build
Noise
Level
with
Project
(dBA)1
Design Year
No -Build
Noise Level
Minus
Existing
Conditions,
dB
Design Year
Build Noise
Level Minus
No -Build
Conditions,
dB
Activity
Category
(NAC)
Impact
Type3
I
R123
--
SFR
2 53
55 54
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R124
--
SFR
2 54
55 54
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R125
--
SFR
2 54
56 55
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R126
--
SFR
2 56
57 56
1 -1
B (67)
NONE
I
R127
--
SFR
1 55
57 56
2 -1
B (67)
NONE
J
R1285
S436PP
SFR
--
63 65
66 2
1 B (67)
NE
J
R129
S436PP
SFR
1 69
70 71
1 1
B (67)
NE
J
R131
--
SFR
1 58
60 60
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132
S452 PP
REC
1 65
67 67
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R132A
S452 PP
REC
1 63
65 65
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R132B
S452 PP
REC
1 63
66 66
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R133
S452 PP
SFR
1 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R134
S452 PP
SFR
2 68
70 70
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R135
S452 PP
SFR
3 67
69 69
2 0
B (67)
NE
K
R136
S452 PP
SFR
1 65
66 66
2 0
B (67)
A/E
K
R137
S452 PP
SFR
1 59
60 61
1 1
B (67)
NONE
K
R138
S452 PP
SFR
1 57
59 59
2 00
B (67)
NONE
K
R139
S452 PP
SFR
1 57
60 60
3 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R140
S452 PP
SFR
2 57
59 59
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R142
S452 PP
SFR
1 53
55 55
2 0
B (67)
NONE
K
R143
S452 PP
SFR
1 56
58 59
2 1
B (67)
NONE
Notes: 1. Leq(h) are A -weighted, peak hour noise levels in decibels. 2 Land Use: SFR — single-family residence; MH — Mobile Home, REC - Recreational; COM — Commercial.
3. S = Substantial Increase (12 dBA or more); A/E = Approach or exceed NAC.
4. There are no outdoor use areas at this commercial land use.
5. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and was not located at the outdoor use area; however, this site is Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 363 540
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures representative of adjacent outdoor use area.
6. This receiver was a monitoring site for noise model calibration purposes and would not represent a noise sensitive site under future conditions.
Source: Parsons Corporation, Noise Study Report -Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvement Project (April 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 364 Item 9.
541
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Under 23 CFR 772, noise abatement is considered for Type I projects if the project is predicted to result in a traffic noise impact. According to the NSR, the predicted design -year traffic noise levels in multiple outdoor activity areas would approach or exceed the applicable NAC and result in substantial traffic noise impact under Build Alternatives 3 and 4. As a result, consideration of noise abatement is required.
Soundwall S379
Project implementation would result in the need for construction of a noise barrier (Soundwall S379) within Area A as noise abatement. According to the NSR, a detailed noise traffic modeling analysis was conducted for Soundwall 379 at EOS, one the ROW line, and at private property locations. The modeling analysis conducted as part of the NSR determined that constructing Soundwall S379 at the private property location (at heights of 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet) would be the only Soundwall to achieve the 7 dB design goal required to be considered feasible. As shown on Figure
2.2.7-2, the Soundwall would begin and end at Stations 377+75 and 379+38 with a combined total length of 182 feet.
The NADR was prepared to determine if all feasible Soundwalls identified in the Preliminary Noise Abatement in the NSR would be cost reasonable and achieve the Caltrans design goal requirements of 7dB reduction. Results of the NADR are shown in Tables 2.2.7-12, Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 3 — Soundwall S379 at Private Property, and 2.2.7- 13, Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S379 at Private Property. Both tables show that all feasible noise barriers options identified under both Build Alternatives for Soundwall S379 would not be reasonable, as the estimated constructions costs for the Soundwall at each height would exceed the total reasonable allowance to construct the Soundwall. As such, Soundwall S379 would not be reasonable to implement as a form of noise abatement.
Table 2.2.7-12: Summary of Abatement Key Information -Alternative 3 - Soundwall S379 at Private Property
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
6 Yes
1 $107,000
$119,000
No
No
8 Yes
1 $107,000
$129,000
No
No
10 Yes
1 $107,000
$140,000
No
No
12 Yes
1 $107,000
$152,000
No
No
14 Yes
1 $107,000
$164,000
No
No
16 Yes
1 $107,000
$175,000
No
No
Source: Michael Baker International, 1-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 365 542
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-13: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S379 at Private Property
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
6 Yes
1 $107,000
$119,000
No
No
8 Yes
1 $107,000
$129,000
No
No
10 Yes
1 $107,000
$140,000
No
No
12 Yes
1 $107,000
$152,000
No
No
14 Yes
1 $107,000
$164,000
No
No
16 Yes
1 $107,000
$175,000
No
No
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Soundwall S401
Project implementation would result in the construction of a noise barrier (Soundwall S401) within Area B as noise abatement. The modeling analysis conducted as part of the NSR determined that noise barriers located at EOS (at heights of 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet), ROW (at heights of 10, 12, 14, and 16 feet) and private property (at heights of 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet) would achieve the 7 dB design goal required to be considered feasible under Build Alternatives 3 and 4. As shown on Figures 2.2.7-2 and 2.2.7-3, Soundwall S401 at EOS would begin and end at Stations 396+00 and 408+58 with a length of 1,165 feet; Soundwall S401 at ROW would begin and end at Stations 395+00 and 408+00, respectively, with a length of 1,311 feet; Soundwall S401 at private property would begin and end at Stations 399+40 and 403+38 with a total combined length of 818 feet.
The NADR determined the cost reasonableness for each feasible version of Soundwall S401, as well as if the Soundwall achieved Caltrans design goal requirements. Tables 2.2.7-14 to 2.2.7-19 summarize the number of benefitted receptors and reasonable allowances for Soundwall S401 at each feasible height under both Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Due to the cost and/or number of benefited residencies, none of the feasible barriers located at ROW and private property would be beneficial or considered reasonable under both Build Alternatives. Additionally, the additional 4 feet in height for a 16 -foot barrier at EOS would not justify the $56,000 and $61,000 increase in construction cost under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, respectively. Therefore, a 14 -foot barrier at EOS would be the most reasonable Soundwall to implement under both Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 366 543
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-14: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 3 — Soundwall S401 at EOS
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
6 Yes
5 $535,000
$263,000
Yes
No
8 Yes
7 $749,000
$318,000
Yes
No
10 Yes
8 $856,000
$374,000
Yes
No
12 Yes
16 $1,712,000
$431,000
Yes
No
14 Yes
19 $2,033,000
$488,000
Yes
Yes
16 Yes
23 $2,461,000
$544,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Table 2.2.7-15: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 3 — Soundwall S401 at ROW
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
10 Yes
4 $428,000
$441,000
No
No
12 Yes
7 $749,000
$505,000
Yes
No
14 Yes
7 $749,000
$568,000
Yes
No
16 Yes
11 $1,177,000
$631,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Table 2.2.7-16: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 3 — Soundwall S401 at Private Property
Height Acoustically Number of Total Estimated Cost Less Design (feet) Feasible? Benefited Reasonable Construction than Goal Residences Allowance Cost Allowance? Achieved?
6 Yes 1 $107,000 $274,000 No I No
1 8 Yes 3 $321,000 $313,000 Yes No
10 Yes
12 Yes
14 Yes
6 18
8 16 Yes 8
$642,000 $350,000 Yes No
$856,000 $393,000 Yes Yes
$856,000 $432,000 Yes Yes
$856,000 $472,000 Yes Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 367 544
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-17: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S401 at EOS
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
6 Yes
4 $428,000
$276,000
Yes
No
8 Yes
5 $535,000
$336,000
Yes
No
10 Yes
8 $856,000
$396,000
Yes
No
12 Yes
16 $1,712,000
$457,000
Yes
No
14 Yes
18 $1,926,000
$518,000
Yes
Yes
16 Yes
22 $2,354,000
$579,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Table 2.2.7-18: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S401 at ROW
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
I Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
10 Yes
3 $321,000
$441,000
No
No
12 Yes
4 $428,000
$505,000
No
No
14 Yes
7 $749,000
$568,000
Yes
No
16 Yes
11 $1,177,000
$631,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Table 2.2.7-19: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S401 at Private Property
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
6 Yes
1 $107,000
$274,000
No
No
8 Yes
4 $428,000
$313,000
Yes
No
10 Yes
7 $749,000
$350,000
Yes
No
12 Yes
8 $856,000
$393,000
Yes
Yes
14 Yes
10 $1,070,000
$432,000
Yes
Yes
16 Yes
10 $1,070,000
$472,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 368 545
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Soundwall S436
Project implementation would result in the construction of a noise barrier (Soundwall S436) within Area J as noise abatement. According to the NSR, analyzing Soundwall S436 at the EOS was not considered because the EOS is approximately 20 feet below the impacted receivers R128 and R129. The modeling analysis conducted as part of the NSR concluded that, under both Build Alternatives 3 and 4, constructing a Soundwall on the ROW line would prove to not be feasible at each height. However, under both Build Alternatives 3 and 4, constructing Soundwall S436 at the private property location (at heights of 8 feet, 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet) would be the only Soundwall to achieve the seven dB design goal required to be considered feasible. As shown in Figure 2.2.7-6, Soundwall S436 at private property would begin and end at Stations 434+89 and 438+15 with a length of 310 feet.
The NADR determined the cost reasonableness for each feasible Soundwall, as well as if the Soundwall achieved Caltrans design goal requirements.
Tables 2.2.7-20, Summary of Abatement Key Information Alternative 3 — Soundwall S436 at Private Property, and 2.2.7-21, Summary of Abatement Key Information Alternative 4 — Soundwall S436 at Private Property, summarize the number of benefitted receptors and reasonable allowances for each barrier height of each Soundwall location under both Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Under both Build Alternatives, the estimated construction cost of Soundwall S436 would outweigh the total reasonable allowance to construct the Soundwall. Therefore, Soundwall S346 would not be reasonable to implement as a form of noise abatement.
Table 2.2.7-20: Summary of Abatement Key Information Alternative 3 — Soundwall S436 at Private Property
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
[—Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of I Total
Benefited Reasonable
Residences Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less Design
than Goal
Allowance? Achieved?
8 Yes
1 $107,000
$163,000
No
No
10 Yes
1 $107,000
$178,000
No
No
12 Yes
1 $107,000
$194,000
No
No
14 Yes
1 $107,000
$209,000
No
No
16 Yes
1 $107,000
$224,000
No
No
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 369 546
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.7-21: Summary of Abatement Key Information Alternative 4 — Soundwall S436 at Private Property
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
8 Yes
1 $107,000
$163,000
No
No
10 Yes
1 $107,000
$178,000
No
No
12 Yes
1 $107,000
$194,000
No
No
14 Yes
1 $107,000
$209,000
No
No
16 Yes
1 $107,000
$224,000
No
No
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Soundwall S452
Project implementation would result in the construction of a noise barrier (Soundwall S436) within Area K as noise abatement. The noise modeling analysis conducted as part of the NSR found that Soundwall S452 at the EOS location would be able to achieve the seven dB design goal required to be considered feasible under Build Alternative 3 (at heights of 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet) and under Build Alternative 4 (at a height 16 feet). The noise modeling analysis found that Soundwall S452 would additionally be a feasible private property location under Build Alternative 3 (at heights of 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet) and Build Alternative 4 (at heights of 8 feet, 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet, and 16 feet). As shown in Figure 2.2.7-6, Soundwall S452 at EOS would begin and end at Stations 440+00 and 459+00 with a length of 1,511 feet. Soundwall S452 at the private property location would begin and end at Stations 445+80 and 455+42, respectively, with a length of 1,109 feet.
The NADR determined the cost reasonableness for each feasible Soundwall, as well as if the Soundwall achieved Caltrans design goal requirements.
Tables 2.2.7-22 through 2.2.7-25 summarize the number of benefitted receptors and reasonable allowances for each barrier height of each Soundwall location under Both Build Alternatives. According to the NADR, if Soundwall S452 were to be located at private properties, the estimated construction cost and the impacts at each feasible height would not justify a recommendation to be incorporated as noise abatement. Under Build Alternative 3, Soundwall S452 located at EOS would cost less than the $1,070,000 total reasonable allowance and would be considered reasonable and feasible at heights of 14 and 16 feet. However, according to the NADR, increase in benefitted residences at a height of 16 feet does not justify the increase in cost. Therefore, under Build Alternatives 3, a Soundwall located at EOS with a height of 14 feet is recommended as noise abatement at this location. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, Soundwall S452 with a height of 16 feet located at EOS would be the only feasible option. As such, a Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 370 547
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Soundwall with a height of 16 feet is recommended as noise abatement at this location.
Tables 2.2.7-22: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 3 — Soundwall S452 at EOS
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
10 Yes
1 $107,000
$457,000
No
No
12 Yes
8 $856,000
$531,000
Yes
No
14 Yes
10 $1,070,000
$604,000
Yes
Yes
16 Yes
10 $1,070,000
$677,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, 1-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Tables 2.2.7-23: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 3 — Soundwall S452 at Private Property
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
8 Yes
7 $749,000
$374,000
Yes
No
10 Yes
7 $749,000
$427,000
Yes
No
12 Yes
7 $749,000
$482,000
Yes
No
14 Yes
7 $749,000
$536,000
Yes
No
16 Yes
11 $1,177,000
$589,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Tables 2.2.7-24: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S452 at EOS
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
16 Yes
10 $1,070,000
$677,000
Yes
No
Source: Michael Baker International, I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 371 548
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Tables 2.2.7-25: Summary of Abatement Key Information —Alternative 4 — Soundwall S452 at Private Property
Item 9.
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Residences
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Constructio
n Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
Design
Goal
Achieved?
8 Yes
7 $749,000
$374,000
Yes
No
10 Yes
7 $749,000
$427,000
Yes
No
12 Yes
7 $749,000
$482,000
Yes
No
14 Yes
7 $749,000
$536,000
Yes
No
16 Yes
10 $1,070,000
$589,000
Yes
Yes
Source: Michael Baker International, 1-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (June 2021).
Based on the studies completed to date, Caltrans intends to incorporate noise abatement in the form of Soundwalls (noise barriers) S401 and S452, with the following respective lengths and average heights:
• S401: 1,165 feet long and 14 feet high (under both Build Alternatives); and • S452: 1,511 feet long and 14 feet high (under Build Alternative 3) to 16 feet high (under Build Alternative 4)
Calculations based on preliminary design data show that the barrier(s) will reduce noise levels by 5 dB for mobile homes and single-family residences at the estimated cost of $488,000 to $589,000. These measures may change based on input received from the public. If conditions have substantially changed during final design, noise abatement may not be constructed. The final decision on noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design.
2.2.8 Energy
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires the identification of all potentially significant impacts to the environment, including energy impacts.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15126.2(b) and Appendix F, Energy Conservation, require an analysis of a project's energy use to determine if the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources.
Affected Environment
This section is based primarily on the Energy Analysis Report (EAR) (dated January 2021) prepared for the project.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 372 549
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Existing Traffic Conditions
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was calculated by multiplying the amount of daily traffic on a roadway segment by the length of the segment. Annual VMT was calculated by multiplying daily VMT from the travel demand model by the number of days per year, with a seasonal factor to account for variations in travel patterns throughout the year. Table 2.2.8-1 shows existing VMT on 1-10 at daily and annual timescales. Table 2.2.8-2 shows the annual energy consumption of the project site under Existing 2019 conditions.
Table 2.2.8-1: Existing (2019) Operational Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled
Daily
Annual
1,881,820
652,991,540
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Table 2.2.8-2: Annual Direct Energy Use (Mobile Sources) (Existing Year 2019)
Fuel Usage
No -Build Alternative
Build Alternative 3
Build Alternative 4
Gasoline
66,794
N/A
N/A
Diesel
16,835
N/A
N/A
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Existing and Projected Vehicle Mix
1-10, part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, has been recognized as an essential link in a multi -modal transportation network. The route is also part of the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act Route Network for oversized Trucks and the Subsystem of Highways for the Movement of Extralegal Permit Loads. Under existing (2019) conditions, truck traffic as a percentage of freeway ADT within the study area is approximately nine percent. In the Opening Year (2025), truck traffic would account for approximately nine percent of total daily volumes. During the Design Year (2045), truck traffic would account for approximately nine percent of total daily volumes.
Energy Resources
California contains abundant sources of renewable and non-renewable energy. The primary energy resources within California are described in the following sections.
Non -Renewable Energy.
Non-renewable energy resources include petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
These energy resources are considered fossil fuels because they were formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton (i.e., microscopic organisms drifting in water bodies), algae, and other vegetation, were buried beneath sedimentary rock and exposed to intense heat and Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 373 550
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures pressure over thousands of years. Fossil fuels are considered non-renewable resources because they cannot be replenished on a meaningful human timeframe. These resources will eventually run out because they cannot be renewed at a sufficient rate for sustainable economic extraction.
Petroleum
Petroleum is a broad category that includes both crude oil and other petroleum products. The terms oil and petroleum are sometimes used interchangeably. Crude oil is a naturally occurring, yellow -to -black liquid found in geological formations beneath the Earth's surface. It is a mixture of hydrocarbons, which are compounds of hydrogen and carbon. Crude oil is recovered mostly through oil drilling and refined and separated into a large number of petroleum products. These products include gasoline, diesel, liquefied petroleum gas/propane, kerosene, lubricants, waxes, asphalt, and various types of jet fuels, oils, and miscellaneous products.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is a hydrocarbon gas mixture, consisting primarily of methane, along with other gases in smaller quantities, including carbon dioxide (002), nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. Natural gas is often found in proximity to petroleum and coal in geological formations beneath the Earth's surface.
Before natural gas can be used as fuel, it must be processed to remove impurities and water.
Coal
Coal is a combustible black or brownish -black sedimentary rock found beneath the Earth's surface in layers called coal beds. Coal is composed primarily of carbon, along with varying quantities of other elements, including hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.
Renewable Energy
Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources that are naturally replenished on a human timescale. Sources of renewable energy include the wind, sun, waves, and the heat of the Earth (i.e., geothermal heat). In addition, organic matter (also referred to as biomass), such as crops, animal waste, and municipal solid waste, can serve as sources of renewable energy, called biofuels. Renewable energy (hydroelectric, solar, and geothermal [i.e., Geysers]) resources are continually replenished through natural processes.
Electricity
Electricity can be made from renewable or non-renewable energy resources.
California has an electricity generation system that generates more than 285,000 gigawatt-hours each year. Non-renewable energy resources that produce electricity in California include coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.
Only a few small coal-fired plants are operating in California. Natural gas power plants are the leading source of electricity in the State, accounting for 43 Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 374 551
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures percent of electricity consumption in California. Nuclear power, another type of non-renewable energy, accounts for approximately 9 percent of electricity generation in California. Nuclear power is a non-renewable energy source because nuclear power plants usually use a very rare type of uranium, U-235.
California is among the top states in the nation in net electricity generation from renewable resources. Approximately 35 percent of California's electricity in 2018 was generated from renewable energy resources. The California Renewable Portfolio Standard set a goal that called for 33 percent of electricity generation to come from eligible renewable resources by 2020.
Transportation Fuels
Petroleum products are the leading source of energy used for transportation in the United States. Gasoline, the leading transportation fuel in the United States, accounted for 53 percent of the nation's transportation fuel consumption in 2019 and 97 percent of the State's transportation fuel consumption. Diesel is the second-largest transportation fuel in California, representing 17 percent of total fuel sales. Because of concerns about energy security and GHG emissions, other sources of motor vehicle fuels are being explored, including renewable fuels and alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels are generally alternatives to traditional gasoline and diesel fuels. These can include the fossil fuels, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas as well as renewable biofuels, which include biodiesel (vegetable -oil- or animal -fat -based diesel fuel) and alcohol (methanol, ethanol, and butanol) derived from crops, animal waste, or municipal solid waste. Other alternative fuels include electricity and hydrogen. Many renewable and alternative fuels result in substantially lower GHG emissions compared to fossil fuels. GHGs include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases.
Energy Consumption
Energy consumption is commonly expressed in British thermal units (BTUs), which is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one -degree Fahrenheit at sea level. Because other units of energy can be converted into equivalent BTUs, the BTU is used as a basis for comparing the consumption of different types of energy resources, such as electricity (kilowatt hour), natural gas (cubic foot), gasoline (gallon), and diesel fuel (gallons).
In 2018, California's per capita energy consumption ranked 48th in the United States because of the state's mild climate and energy efficiency programs. The following describes the existing consumption rates of non-renewable energy resources (petroleum, transportation fuels, etc.) in the state of California.
Petroleum
Petroleum consumption in California is shown in Table 2.2.8-3, Petroleum Consumption in California 2018 for the year 2018. Data for petroleum Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 375 552
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures consumption in Riverside County are not readily available. As shown in Table
2.2.8-3, approximately 583,547 in the thousands of barrels are used for transportation fuels, making up 85.7 percent of the total petroleum consumption in California.
Table 2.2.8-3: Petroleum Consumption in California 2018 Sector
Thousand Barrels
Percent Total Consumption
Residential
6,400
0.9 Commercial
17,254
2.5 Industrial
74,005
10.9 Transportation
583,547
85.7 Electric Power
66 0.01
Total
681,272
100.0
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Transportation Fuels
Fossil fuels, specifically, petroleum products, gasoline, and diesel, have been the leading transportation fuel in the United States, accounting for 97 percent of the State's transportation fuel consumption. California's fossil fuel consumption for the transportation sector is shown in Table 2.2.8-4, Traditional Fuel Consumption in California for the Transportation Sector in 2018. As shown in Table 2.2.8-4, approximately 1,764.4 in trillion BTU's of gasoline are consumed, making up approximately 56.6 percent of the total fossil fuel consumption in the State.
Table 2.2.8-4: Traditional Fuel Consumption in California for the Transportation Sector in 2018
Sector
Trillion BTU
Percent Total Consumption
Aviation gasoline
2.2 0.1
Distillate fuel oil
483.8
15.5 Jet fuel
684.8
22.0 Hydrocarbon gas liquids
0.7 0.0
Lubricants
13.2 0.4
Gasoline
1,764.4
56.6 Residual fuel oil
168.8
5.4 Total Fossil Fuel Consumption
3,118.0
100
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Methodology
The energy analysis is based on the methodology described in Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 1, Chapter 13 — Energy, as well as guidance provided by Caltrans regarding CEQA updates, effective April 27, 2019. The energy analysis addresses both direct and indirect energy consumption, which are defined as follows:
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 376 553
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Direct Energy. In the context of transportation, direct energy involves all energy consumed by vehicles (e.g., automobiles, trains, airplanes) for propulsion. This energy consumption is a function of traffic characteristics, such as VMT, speed, vehicle mix, and the thermal value of the fuel being used. In addition, direct energy also includes the one-time energy expenditure involved in construction of the project. Therefore, analysis of direct energy use includes the following factors:
• Direct Energy (Mobile Sources): The energy consumed by vehicle propulsion within the facility during operation of the project. • Direct Energy (Construction): The energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment during construction of the project. • Indirect Energy: Maintenance activities that would result in long-term indirect energy consumption from the use of the equipment required to operate and maintain the roadway.
Direct energy consumption from mobile sources associated with the project was estimated using traffic model forecasts for VMT from the Traffic Operations Analysis Report prepared for the project (refer to Section 2.2.9, Traffic and Transportation) and the EMFAC2017 air quality model, which provides estimated fuel consumption rates for the Existing Year 2019, Opening Year 2025, and Design Year 2045. Estimated energy consumption in 2045 is the most conservative (i.e., highest) because population and employment are projected to be higher in that year than in any earlier year.
Therefore, the energy consumption of the Build Alternatives is compared with projected 2045 baseline conditions, which assumes that limited baseline transportation improvements have occurred and that the proposed project improvements were not implemented. The EMFAC2017 model incorporates energy and conservation measures that were adopted as of December 2017, such as the federal Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Standards, but it does not consider policies that were not yet adopted. EMFAC2017 uses average values of energy consumption for various vehicle types, based on available data; using the level of VMT, it is possible to calculate energy consumption per VMT and, ultimately, per day or per year.
Direct energy use associated with fuel consumption during project construction was estimated by converting CO2 emissions generated by diesel and gasoline equipment for the 2 -year construction period, using the rate of CO2 emissions emitted per gallon of combusted gasoline and diesel. These CO2 emissions were obtained from the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Improvement Project Air Quality Report, which quantified CO2 emissions using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Roadway Construction Emissions Model.
To assess indirect energy use from maintenance of the project facility, as well as maintenance of vehicles using the facility, energy use factors were obtained from Caltrans' Energy and Transportation Systems Handbook. The Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 377 554
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard resource study area for potential energy impacts is a subarea of the overall Sothern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region and defined by comparing 2045 regional travel demand model forecasts of daily traffic volumes using the highway network under the No - Build Alternative to one set of traffic volumes for future -year scenarios.
Environmental Consequences
The analysis of project impacts is conducted at the regional level and, therefore, by its nature, is an analysis of cumulative impacts. The analysis that follows discusses the direct and indirect energy use impacts for each project alternative.
Temporary Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Construction activities under the No -Build Alternative would not occur as a result of the I-10/Cherry Boulevard Interchange project. Therefore, energy consumption related to construction activities would not occur.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Direct energy use from construction sources is the energy that is consumed during construction activities by vehicles and equipment. Project construction would consume primarily diesel fuel through the operation of heavy-duty equipment as well as commercial trucks for material deliveries and debris hauling; gasoline would be consumed during workers' vehicle trips to and from the construction site.
Project construction would also involve the use of on -road gasoline vehicles by construction workers. Overall, construction fuel consumption for the proposed project was calculated by converting the estimated CO2 emission levels generated by diesel -powered off -road equipment and on -road gasoline vehicles for the construction period, as provided by the Air Quality Report prepared for the proposed project, into the number of gallons of diesel and gasoline that would be consumed during project construction activities.
As shown in Table 2.2.8-5, construction activities associated with implementation of Build Alternative 3 would consume approximately 249,785 gallons of diesel fuel and 16,224 gallons of gasoline, with energy consumption totaling approximately 33,619 million BTUs over the two-year period. As shown in Table 2.2.8-6, construction activities associated with implementation of Build Alternative 4 would result in the consumption of approximately 243,793 gallons of diesel fuel and 16,224 gallons of gasoline, with energy consumption totaling approximately 32,855 million BTUs over the two-year period. These energy consumption levels represent a nominal demand on local and regional fuel supplies and would be accommodated.
Furthermore, this demand would be temporary and cease once construction is complete. The demand for fuel would have no noticeable effect on peak or baseline demands for energy.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 378 555
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Although construction would result in a short-term increase in energy use, construction design features would help conserve energy. For example, recycled materials, including removed asphalt concrete pavement and cement concrete pavement, would be used where feasible. Recycled products typically have lower energy costs for manufacturing and transportation because recycled products do not require raw materials, which must be mined and transported to a processing facility. If new materials must be used, a fly ash mix may be considered to lower the heat island effect,8 depending on what is allowable under Caltrans specifications. Additionally, project construction would include the use of reclaimed water and energy - efficient lighting, such as light emitting diode (LED) traffic signals. The energy conservation features would be consistent with State and local policies to reduce energy consumption. Therefore, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and would not result in an adverse effect in this regard.
Table 2.2.8-5: Direct Energy Use During 2 -Year Construction Period (Build Alternative 3)
Source
Diesel
Consumption
(gallons)
Gasoline
Consumption
(gallons)
Fuel Consumption
(million BTUs)
Soil Hauling
7,450
--
950
Asphalt Hauling
9,853
--
1,256
Worker Commute
--
16,224
1,781
Water Truck
3,526
--
449
Off -road Equipment
228,958
--
29.183
Total
249,785
16,224
33,619
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Table 2.2.8-6: Direct Energy Use During 2 -Year Construction Period (Build Alternative 4)
Source
Diesel
Consumption
(gallons)
Gasoline
Consumption
(gallons)
Fuel Consumption
(million BTUs)
Soil Hauling
1,064
--
136
Asphalt Hauling
10,246
--
1,306
Worker Commute
--
16,224
1,781
Water Truck
3,526
--
449
Off -road Equipment
228,956
--
29,183
Total
243,793
16,224
32,855
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
8 The heat island effect occurs when the sun heats dry, exposed urban surfaces, such as roofs and pavement, to temperatures 50 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) hotter than the air.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 379 556
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Permanent Impacts
No -Build Alternative
Direct Energy Use (Mobile Sources)
Under the No -Build Alternative, the increase in forecast traffic volumes would result in a worsening of traffic congestion, slower traffic speeds, and increases in traffic delays. As shown below in Tables 2.2.8-7 and 2.2.8-8, between the Opening Year and the Design Year, the annual VMT under the No -Build Alternative would increase by over 478,000.Without the improvements proposed under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, congested traffic conditions and limitations on mobility would be more prevalent throughout the study area. These conditions would contribute to inefficient energy consumption because vehicles would use extra fuel while idling in stop -and - go traffic or moving at slow speeds along congested roadways.
The No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with regional and local policies because there would be no decrease in traffic congestion, and operational, mobility, and travel -time conditions for the mainline, interchanges, and ramps would continue to deteriorate, thus contributing to inefficient energy consumption.
Indirect Energy Use
Indirect energy use involves the energy use that is consumed during maintenance of the facility, and the maintenance of vehicles using the facility.
The indirect energy use factor is directly relative to the number of lane miles added to the facility; refer to the analysis described in the Build Alternatives 3 and 4 section, under the Indirect Energy Use subsection. As shown in Tables
2.2.8-12 and 2.2.8-13 below, the indirect energy use for facility maintenance in the study area under No -Build Alternative in Opening Year 2025 conditions would remain relatively similar to that of the No -Build Alternative in Design Year 2045. Indirect energy use for vehicle maintenance under No -Build Alternative in Opening Year 2025 conditions would increase to 2,805.99 in billion BTUs by the Design Year 2045. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would have approximately 1.98 and 2.07 additional lane miles, respectively, along the 1-10 corridor. This would result in higher levels of indirect energy use. As shown in Tables 2.2.8-12, by the Opening Year 2025 the No -Build would result in 0.02 percent less indirect energy use compared to Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Table 2.2.8-13 shows that by Design Year 2045 the No -Build alternative would result in 0.001 percent less indirect energy use compared to Build Alternative 3, and 0.002 percent less indirect energy use compared to Build Alternative 4.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
Direct Energy Use (Mobile Sources)
Energy calculations for transportation projects are dependent on VMT and vehicle fuel consumption. For the study area, energy calculations are based on annual VMT. VMT for Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2045) conditions for the No -Build Alternative and both Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 380 557
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures shown in Tables 2.2.8-7 and 2.2.8-8. As shown in Table 2.2.8-1, above, and Tables 2.2.8-7 and 2.2.8-8, below, daily and annual VMT under Existing (2019) conditions are lower than daily and annual VMT in the Opening Year 2025 and Design Year 2045 under all Alternatives. The increase in daily and annual VMT can be attributed to the projected increase in population growth as well as increased employment in the region as a result of planned projects in the vicinity. Table 2.2.8-8, Operational Vehicle Miles by Alternative (Design Year 2045), shows that by the Design Year 2045, the daily and annual VMT under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would be less then when compared to each respective VMT under the No -Build Alternative.
Table 2.2.8-7: Operational Vehicle Miles by Alternative (Opening Year 2025)
VMT
No -Build Alternative
Build Alternative 3
Build Alternative 4
Daily VMT
2,389,676
2,389,676
2,389,676
Annual VMT1
829,217,628
829,217,628
829,217,628
Notes: 1. Annual values were derived by multiplying the daily values by 347, per California Air Resources Board methodology
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Table 2.2.8-8: Operational Vehicle Miles by Alternative (Design Year 2045)
VMT
No -Build Alternative
Build Alternative 3
Build Alternative 4
Daily VMT
3,768,143
3,767,723
3,767,723
Annual VMT1
1,307,545,581
1,307,399,796
1,307,399,796
Notes: 1. Annual values were derived by multiplying the daily values by 347, per California Air Resources Board methodology
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
The energy consumption of each alternative is related directly to gasoline and diesel fuel consumption by automobiles and trucks. In addition to VMT, fleet mix and travel speeds also affect fuel consumption. Operational energy consumption was estimated based on vehicle types (e.g., automobiles, trucks, light -duty trucks, medium -duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks) traveling within the project vicinity using the CT-EMFAC2017 model, which relies on emission factors from the EMFAC2017 (version 1.0.2) model. The EMFAC2017 model output provided the total gallons of combined gasoline and diesel fuel.
Energy use can be represented in terms of the thermal value of the fuel and is usually measured in BTU. Gallons of fuel can be converted to BTUs by using the heat content of the fuel. Diesel fuel has a heat content of 127,460 BTUs per gallon, and gasoline has a heat content of 109,772 BTUs per gallon.
Annual direct energy use under each alternative is analyzed in Tables 2.2.8-9 and 2.2.8-10.
Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 381 558
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.8-9: Annual Direct Energy Use (Mobile Sources) (Opening Year 2025)
Fuel Usage
No -Build
Alternative
Build Alternative 3
Build Alternative 4
Gasoline
69,426
69,423
69,423
Diesel
18,570
18,570
18,570
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
Table 2.2.8-10: Annual Direct Energy Use (Mobile Sources) (Design Year 2045)
Fuel Usage
No -Build
Alternative
Build Alternative 3
Build Alternative 4
Gasoline
81,993
81,984
81,984
Diesel
23,572
23,569
23,569
2019 BTU (billion)
7,332
N/A
N/A
2025 BTU (billion)
7,621
7,621
7,621
2045 BTU (billion)
9,001
9,000
9,000
2025 percent
change from no
build
0.005
0.005
2045 percent
change from no
build
---
0.011
0.011
Source: ICF, Energy Analysis Report, January 2021.
As shown in Tables 2.2.8-2, 2.2.8-9, and 2.2.8-10 the annual energy consumption between Existing Year 2019 and Design Year 2045 would increase by 1,669 million BTUs (23 percent) and VMT is projected to increase by 27 percent. This slight disparity is attributed to fleet turnover, as older, less fuel -efficient vehicles are replaced by later -model, more fuel -efficient vehicles over time. These later -model replacement vehicles would also include hybrid and all -electric vehicles. Among the Build Alternatives, only a slight change in energy consumption would occur because of the following reasons: 1) no change in project -vicinity VMT, and 2) the relatively small magnitude of this single interchange capacity enhancement considering the larger region.
Therefore, energy consumption under either Build Alternatives 3 or 4 would be negligible compared with the No -Build Alternative.
Federal and State regulations and policies (e.g., Surface Transportation Act, Energy Policy Act, California's Transportation Plan) are intended to achieve goals that include reducing congestion, improving air quality, and increasing vehicle fuel efficiency. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would not conflict with these regulations or policies. The regional and local policies (e.g., SCAG 2020-2045 RTP, City of Calimesa General Plan, and Riverside County General Plan) include goals that involve reducing congestion, reducing traffic on arterial roads, promoting mass transit, reducing VMT, and increasing vehicle occupancy rates. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would be consistent with these Item 9.
Interstate 10/Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange Project • 382 559
Chapter 2 • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures policies because the project would enhance operations by improving reliability and travel times within the 1-10 corridor and improve traffic flow by reducing congestion and offering motorists a faster and more reliable commute. Lastly, operations under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would include implementation of intelligent transportation systems to help manage the efficiency of the existing highway system. Intelligent transportation systems are commonly referred to as electronics, communications, or information processing, used singly or in combination, to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system. Furthermore, based on the Energy Analysis Report, no substantial alterations to the existing energy infrastructure would be required and the project would have minimal impacts on operational energy consumption.