Appendix G Water Quality

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Appendix G Water Quality GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL APPENDIX G WATER QUALITY This appendix contains the Water Quality Technical Report prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report. Landrum & Brown Appendix G – Water Quality June 2014 Page G-1 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Landrum & Brown Appendix G – Water Quality June 2014 Page G-2 Water Quality Technical Report Gnoss Field Airport Marin County, California Prepared for: Landrum & Brown, Incorporated November 20, 2009 Revised October 12, 2010 Submitted by: 2010 Page G-3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................... 2 2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Federal Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Federal Safe Water Drinking Act ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1980 .............................................................................. 4 2.2 State Regulations ................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.1 State Water Resources Control Board ....................................................................................... 4 2.3 Local Regulations ................................................................................................................ 7 2.3.1 Marin County ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................... 10 3.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 10 3.2 Site History ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 10 3.5 Physical Features ............................................................................................................... 11 3.5.1 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 11 3.5.2 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.5.3 Regional Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 11 3.5.4 Local Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.5.5 Precipitation and Climate ........................................................................................................ 14 4.0 Water Quality Assessment Methodology ............................................................ 15 4.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Water Quality Parameters of Concern ............................................................................... 16 4.2.1 pH ......................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Specific Conductance ............................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3 Oil and Grease ......................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.4 Total Organic Carbon .............................................................................................................. 18 4.2.5 Biological Oxygen Demand ..................................................................................................... 19 4.2.6 Chemical Oxygen Demand ....................................................................................................... 19 4.2.7 Suspended Sediment ................................................................................................................. 19 4.2.8 Nutrients ................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.9 Trace Metals ............................................................................................................................ 21 4.2.10 Pathogens ................................................................................................................................. 23 4.2.11 Pesticides ................................................................................................................................. 23 4.3 Airport Operations that May Affect Water Quality and Applicable Best Management Practices ............................................................................ 24 4.4 Water Quality Parameters of Concern Summary .............................................................. 26 4.5 Stormwater Pollutant Loads .............................................................................................. 28 4.5.1 The Simple Method................................................................................................................... 28 5.0 Water Quality Existing Conditions (2008) ......................................................... 29 6.0 Environmental Consequences and Impacts ....................................................... 31 6.1 Alternative A – No Action ................................................................................................ 33 Gnoss Field Airport i Landrum and Brown, Inc. Water Quality Technical Report Foothill Associates © 2010 Page G-4 6.2 Alternative B ..................................................................................................................... 34 6.3 Alternative D ..................................................................................................................... 35 6.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 35 7.0 References .............................................................................................................. 36 List of Tables Table 1 — Beneficial Uses Pertinent to the Proposed Project .............................................5 Table 2 — Gnoss Field Airport Operations and Potential Storm Water Pollutants ..........24 Table 3 — Event Mean Concentrations for Stormwater Runoff by Land Use (mg/l) .......27 Table 4 — Gnoss Field Water Quality Pollutant Sampling Data ......................................29 Table 5 — Gnoss Field Existing Conditions (2008) – Estimated Average Annual ............. Pollutant Loads ................................................................................................30 Table 6 — Estimated Average Annual Pollutant Loads by Alternative ............................32 Table 7 — Estimated Annual Pollutant Loading Increase by Alternative Compared to ExistingConditions (2008) Pollutant Loading .................................................33 List of Figures Figure 1 — Site and Vicinity .............................................................................................39 Figure 2 — Soils ................................................................................................................40 Figure 3 — Local Drainage ...............................................................................................41 Figure 4 — Site Drainage ..................................................................................................42 List of Appendices Appendix A — Water Resources Gnoss Field Airport ii Landrum and Brown, Inc. Water Quality Technical Report Foothill Associates © 2010 Page G-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents detailed information on existing conditions (2008) related to water quality associated with implementation of the proposed Gnoss Field Airport Runway Extension Project (proposed project). This report provides data and analysis in support of the Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the proposed project. This Water Quality Technical Report discusses the regulatory setting, describes existing water quality conditions (2008) for the project site and immediate vicinity, and analyzes three project alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the Preferred Alternative [Proposed Project (Alternative B)] and Alternative D. This report also describes methodology used to assess
Recommended publications
  • Rob Harrison Press Release
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts: Rob Harrison or Susan Newman-Harrison Phone: 909.626.7442 AEROBATIC PERFORMER ROB HARRISON – THE TUMBLING BEAR RARELY UPRIGHT That Rob Harrison would be popping in and out of puffs of white smoke, spinning, diving and twisting through the air in a specially built monoplane, repeatedly contorting his body to resist up to eight times his body weight in pressure, was unthinkable on that first flight. Then, his Dad, a career Naval officer, was at the controls of a Piper Cub, and 6-year-old Rob was scared. Now, nearly six decades later, the Claremont, CA resident, better known in airshow circles as “The Tumbling Bear,” remembers that first flight. Remembers, sure; dwells upon it, no. That’s typical. This is a guy who rarely looks back, always forward. There’s the next show, the next new move, the next generation he hopes to pass along his positive attitudes on experimentation and achievement. Fear is also a distant memory. There’s no place for it now, not with the massive rush of adrenaline that accompanies each 1 Rob Harrison Airshows | 1275 N. Indian Hill Blvd. | Claremont, California 91711 | Phone (909) 626-7442 | Fax (909) 626-2906 | e-mail: [email protected] flight, the intense concentration required to complete each move, and the enormous physical pressure while airborne. Besides, he says, “Fear is the enemy of safety.” The Tumbling Bear, all 6-foot and 250 pounds of him, has been a marquee airshow attraction since 1993 when he made the decision to embark on a new career after 28 years with the United States Forest Service, where he was responsible for the technical aspects of firefighting airplanes and helicopters.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) 37600 Sky Canyon Dr
    FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) 37600 Sky Canyon Dr. Murrieta, CA Phone: 951-600-7297 Riverside FAA FSDO Complaint Line: (951) 276-6701 Visit the F70 website for additional information regarding the airport and procedures at www.rcfva.org Federal Aviation Administration FAA Headquarters 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 www.faa.gov/contact Feedback is always appreciated at [email protected] INTRODUCTION In response to community interest, this booklet was developed to provide an overview of Airport operations and the complaint process. It will explain how and what aircraft operate in vicinity of F70, their interaction with our neighbors, and how complaints are handled. (F70 is the identifier selected by Federal Aviation Administration for the French Valley Airport. All airports have a three- character identifier; local examples are ONT for Ontario International Airport and LAX for Los Angeles Airport.) AIRPORT HISTORY In the late 1970s, discussion and planning began on relocating the existing Rancho California Airport due, in part, to safety deficiencies. In addition, the airport was leased to the County with the owner not wanting to renew the lease. An evaluation leading to the identification and selection of potential new sites was undertaken in June 1983. In June 1985 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution designating the French Valley site as the replacement site for the existing Rancho California Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration approved the French Valley Airport Layout plan in 1985 and funded four grants for land acquisition. Initial construction of French Valley Airport began in October 1987 and was completed in April 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessor Book Boundaries National Parks : 1178 O § 1242 E ¦¨ GRAN S N 0322 D D AVE
    LEY S L P A Y E V INYO COUNTY R A S P R I E INYO COUNTY T20NR10E Jupiter Pioneer Copper Y Point of Point Queen N Mine Rocks L D Rob Roy Acme Omega Canyon A T20NR01E 0512 Mine H (historical) T20NR08E R Smith Mine Beck Kingston # Standard T20NR02E T20NR06E Sperry Rogers Mine Range Blackwater # T20NR11E 0485 # L T20NR03E T20NR05E T20NR07E Hills Western Spring Mine Excelsior A S # Mine Monarch I T19NR09EN Mine T20NR09E Number Two Red Hill # L # Talc Mine O # Mine T20NR04E Pleasanton Mine # # Horse N Mine # T25SR40E Searles L # F # Thief # Snow N L M#ine # I # T T19NR06EN Springs # Long S T19NR07EN T19NR08EN White I I Valley # #Moorehouse # U T Valley E #Mine Acme L E Mine Alexander Tecopa# Q E A Mine # G E Hills Pass S A Trona A# BootAh N Kingston # # Mine T25SR41E Trona Y S # Alexander A E T L C R T19NR12E V M V o L #Mine Cub Lee s # N t M Well N T25SR43E T25SR44E R T25SR46E A L O Argus T25SR45E T25SR47E L I T Argus Tank a S A # Sandora k # T19NR13E U Canyon I T19NR08EE T25SR42E A Mine G e H G Wingate S Sperry N Borosolvay # Pass I N N O # K K Virginia Lake N I L N # China # Sand View # Old Ibex T19NR10E 0486 Canyon Ann Mine Owlshead AT19NR03E Ibex A D U M O N T Mine O T19NR04E T Wash Pass T19NR06E H I L L S Lake M E # Mountains T Kingston D T L Ponga E T19NR09E Peak T19NR11E Mesquite E China # T19NR02E N L G # S # T19NR07E T19NR08E Crystal # # Mine P Valley N S South N T19NR05E Mesquite L I U O Lake Trona New York Mine Hills Owl Lake # # Mountains # TA 0520 E Rabbit Mesquite R O T Colorado N # SISKIYOU Searles E U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ~ COP11 Performance of Recycled Asphalt G~ DOT/FAA/PM-86/12 -/ Program Engineering Concrete Airport Pavement /.(.L-~ and Maintenance Service Washington, D.C
    ;~ COP11 Performance of Recycled Asphalt g~ DOT/FAA/PM-86/12 -/ Program Engineering Concrete Airport Pavement /.(.l-~ and Maintenance Service Washington, D.C. 20591 Surfaces G. D. Cline M.C. Hironaka Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Port Hueneme, CA 93043 Q 24 ~ ~~ ~""" r ~ 01'1• llJ. ... October t 986 Final Report This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration -----------~--~~ NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/PM-86/12 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date PERFORMANCE OF RECYCLED ASPHALT CONCRETE October 1986 AIRPORT PAVEMENT SURFACES 6. Performing Organization Code NCEL (L53) !--:::----...,-,-----------------------------1~~--~~~----~~--~----~ 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authorl s) Technical Note N-1765 Cline, G.D. and Hironaka, M.C. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAlS) Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory 53-048 Port Hueneme, California 93043-5003 11. Contract ar Grant Na. DTFA01-83-Y-30593 13. Type af Report and Period Covered ~~--------------------~--------------------------------~ 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Federal Aviation Administration Aug 1983 - May 1986 Program Engineering and Maintenance Service 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20591 APM-740 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The objective of this research was to make an assessment of the relative performance of recycled versus new asphalt concrete pavement surfaces constructed for airport facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • 30-Mile Studio Zone Map N S U G Viejo E
    David Rd Banducci Rd S d Horse Thief o R d 33 r Rd a e Golf & Country Club 58 14 L iv 5 e ak g R e 99 d ld R v d O Mojave l Rid B r 166 Maricopa Maricopa Hwy Airport y d le t 166 i R 166 e Tehachapi Mountains C e e h in a Rd i m W ek Mojave n y SAN LUIS OBISPO e r Cr a ld o l O f i C l a COUNTY C Pine Cyn Rd 58 North Edwards d R yn 58 d C R d t o e o u S nw o sq o da Boron u tt p o L a e C R k T d e d R n 166 14 o y n a Backus Rd d I C r y R d w d o v d s l R in is d l g Hw R B R A F s R n i r n o a o n r t r h i California o e d il KERN r t l k p R an c r i d e s Aliso Park S i e d Aqueduct m p Cerr a S P R o c w l r en Rd l o Edwards n h T o l 58 e Noro a - c l COUNTY i Hi B L e s r e AFB v i st W e nk i a Foothill Rd K Rd j p l o ey a M h 5 c Rd a h e T Rosamond C erro N Willow Springs Airport oroest e Rd Raceway Barstow Fort Tejon Rosamond Blvd t d S n R i State Historic Park Mil P otrero Hw Rosamond Blvd n Ma Lenwood y Rosamond a S m d i er Frazier e 395 r C R ud a H Fo dy xen Va Park lle w C y F a R razier Mountain P y ny d ark Rd on R 33 d r ve B e Ri a av rs Moj LOS PADRES t ow y NATIONAL FOREST G w R o d d rm s H an R il P a o Lanc E r aster e s Quail Rd T l d t R t al d a S n R n Lake y o yo Avenue D d ti n Avenue D h w n a t C r Na e 0 s 138 l o 138 F s 2 Ali 138 e y Sisquoc 1 H Hungry Valley e 1 l Figueroa Mounta River l in Rd 0 a t State Vehicular General V h 15 d e S William J Fox p 247 VENTURA Recreation Area t y R W e W o l Cuyama t W Airfield all e N2 S V t d Sierra Madre t River n R E h S F t t Mountains ood A Avenue
    [Show full text]
  • Jurupa Area Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank
    Jurupa Area Plan This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS VISION SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................4 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ................................................................................................5 LOCATION...........................................................................................................................................................6 FEATURES ..........................................................................................................................................................6 SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................6 UNIQUE FEATURES .............................................................................................................................................7 Santa Ana River ..........................................................................................................................................7 Jurupa Mountains/Pyrite Canyon ................................................................................................................7 Pedley Hills ..................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS – Appendix R1, Data Supporting Volume
    Appendix R1.22 Public Safety and Services This appendix includes 5 tables that present airports, fire stations, police stations, landfills and schools within the Plan Area. Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX R1.22. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES Appendix R1.22 Public Safety and Services Table R1.22-1 Airports Within and Near the Plan Area Map Key Airport Airport Land use Compatibility Plan 1 Agua Dulce Airpark 2 Apple Valley Town of Apple Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared by the Town of Apple Valley. March 1995. 3 Avi Suquilla 4 Banning Municipal 5 Barstow-Daggett Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Barstow-Daggett Airport. San Bernardino County. May 1992. 6 Bermuda Dunes 7 Big Bear City Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Big Bear City Airport. San Bernardino County. February 1992. 8 Bishop 9 Blythe 10 Brawley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Imperial County Airports. Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1996. 11 Cable Cable Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. West Valley Planning Agency Airport Land Use Commission. December 9, 1981. 12 Calexico International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Imperial County Airports. Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1996. 13 General WM J Fox Airfield 14 Hesperia Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Hesperia Airport. San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission. Prepared by Ray A. Vidal Aviation Planning Consultant. January 1991. 15 Imperial County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Imperial County Airports. Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1996. 16 Inyokern (Kern County) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. County of Kern. March 29, 2011. 17 Lake Havasu City 18 Laughlin Bullhead International 19 Mojave (Kern County) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Rwy 5 Rnav (Gps)
    HEMET, CALIFORNIA AL-6678 (FAA) 20254 Rwy Idg APP CRS 4315 TDZE 1513 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 035° Apt Elev 1515 HEMET-RYAN (HMT) RNP APCH MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 2500 then climbing left turn to T 7900 direct SETER and hold, continue climb-in-hold to 7900. A AWOS-3PT MARCH APP CON UNICOM 118.375 133.5 306.975 123.0(CTAF)L UMIT 25 H N 2931 A S M SETER 2890 M 2704 167 12700 347 ° 4050 2569 ° 7 NM 2689 5188 5000 3876 4106 2238 3000 2673 00 0 5 SW-3, 07 OCT 2021 to 04 NOV 2182 1598 2574 2281 Final approach course offset 14.89°. (MAP) HUMIT (FAF) FOMIN 3343 OTEBE 2.6 NM to HUMIT HUMAN 3 3400 0 0 035° (2.4) 0 4652 3040 3000 ° 4000 2555 3666 035) (IF/IAF) (6 WESIN 5640 SW-3, 07 OCT 2021 to 04 NOV Procedure NA for arrivals at WESIN ELEV TDZE on V186 southeast bound. 1515 1513 23 2500 7900 22 WESIN SETER P P HUMAN U 3% 25 0. X OTEBE 4 FOMIN 2014 2.6 NM to 5 100 X 5500 HUMIT 2.1 NM to 035 4315 ° 3.02° HUMIT H 4000 TCH 40 HUMIT 3400 2520 Rwy 4-22 restricted for 6 NM 2.4 NM 2.7 NM 0.5 NM 2.1 0.5 glider operations. CATEGORY A B C D 1 1 2360-1 2360-14 2360-2 2 LNAV MDA NA 1 1 847 (900-1) 847 (900-14 ) 847 (900-2 2 ) 1 2360-1 2400-14 2600-3 CIRCLING NA 1 MIRL Rwy 5-23 L 845 (900-1) 885 (900-14 ) 1085 (1100-3) HEMET, CALIFORNIA HEMET-RYAN (HMT) Orig-D 10SEP20 33°44'N-117°01'W RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 M1 A ALTERNATE MINS A 21280 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS A IFR ALTERNATE AIRPORT MINIMUMS Standard alternate minimums for non-precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance [NDB, VOR, LOC, TACAN, LDA, SDF, VOR/DME, ASR, RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP)] are 800-2.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.0 Response to Comments
    F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020 2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The City received twenty-two (22) letters or email comments on the Draft EIR. Of these comments, seven were received from State, regional, or local agencies; two were from community/business organizations; one was from a tribal government; and twelve received from private parties. All comments have been responded to within this document. Comments that address environmental concerns have been specifically addressed. Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states: a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Existing Conditions
    Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program Field A. INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Buchanan A > Inventory of Existing Conditions INTRODUCTION. Buchanan Field Airport (CCR) is the major general aviation reliever airport serving Contra Costa County and multiple communities located in the northeastern portion of the greater San Francisco Bay Area (see Figure A1). The Airport has been a catalyst for business growth in the region and has served as an anchor for the local employment base, as well as meeting the aviation transportation needs. Situated in an unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County, directly adjacent to the thriving urban heartbeat of the City of Concord, Buchanan Field Airport is a vital component of the transportation infrastructure serving the region for tourism and business. Buchanan Field Airport is well equipped to serve regional demand related to general aviation and business aviation needs. The Airport has a reputation as being an excellent aviation facility that offers a safe and efficient operational environment. The Bay Area continues to experience significant increases in business activity, commercial and residential growth, and economic development. Because of this, Buchanan Field Airport is also being presented with increasing operational and facility demands. Many of the areas surrounding the Airport, with many high quality homes and environmental amenities, have experienced significant residential development, resulting in homeowner concerns about the effect that the Airport may have on their lifestyle. Some of these homes and facilities are located within a two to three mile radius of the Airport. Thus, the Airport may influence the social, economic, and physical environments of the area in which it operates.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transit Countywide Performance Report
    AUGUST 2018 Riverside County Public Transportation Annual Countywide Performance Report FY 2016/2017 Prepared by This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction n 1 About This Report | 1 Context for Public Transit | 1 Performance Reporting n 3 Purposes | 3 The Measures | 3 Policy and Compliance | 4 Utilization | 7 Accessibility and Coverage | 10 Connectivity | 20 Resources | 21 Summary of How We’re Doing n 21 What Do This Year’s Indicators Suggest for Riverside County Public Transportation | 27 New Transit Initiatives n 21 City of Corona | 26 City of Riverside | 26 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency | 27 Pass Transit - City of Banning | 28 Pass Transit - City of Beaumont | 28 Riverside Transit Agency | 28 Sunline Transit Agency | 29 The Challenge Going Forward n 30 Strategies to Promote Responsiveness to Customer Needs | 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendices n 32 Appendix A – Definitions, Data Sets, and References | 33 Appendix B – Public Transit Trips Provided, All Modes | 34 Appendix C – Bus Stop Location Counts by Operators Supporting Table 5 (Transfer Locations) | 35 Appendix D – Public Transit Fleet Size Over Four Fiscal Years | 39 Appendix E – Public Utilities Code Requirement for Performance Monitoring | 40 Introduction About This Report This fifth iteration of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL COUNTYWIDE PERFORMANCE REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 (COUNTYWIDE REPORT) examines the performance of public transportation services of rail, bus, demand response and specialized transportation in Riverside County. Prepared in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 99244, this report reflects Transportation Development Act (TDA) requirements that county transportation planning agencies monitor transit provider performance. The COUNTYWIDE REPORT serves another purpose: providing a comprehensive, countywide picture of public transit expenditures and what was provided and consumed for these investments.
    [Show full text]