Beaumont City Council
October 18, 2022

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6
Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), the Corps is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which include those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (51 Federal Register [FR] 41217, November 13, 1986; 53 FR 20764, June 6, 1988) and further defined by the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC; 531 U.S. 159) decision and the 2006 Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715) decision. The Corps, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The Corps would require a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) for more than minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. as determined by the Corps. Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit (NWP).

A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1341) is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The RWQCB, a division of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), provides oversight of the Section 401 certification process in California. The RWQCB is required to provide Water Quality Certification for licenses or permits that authorize an activity that may result in a discharge from a point source into a waters of the U.S. Water Quality Certification authorization “is limited to assuring that a discharge from a Federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements” (40 CFR 121.3).

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the U.S. under Section 402 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1342).

State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) was established in 1970 as California’s counterpart to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, where feasible.

CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a "project." A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity, which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

California Endangered Species Act and Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA; California Fish and Game Code [CFGC] § 2050 et seq.), in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CFGC § 1900 et seq.), regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the state. California also lists species of special concern Deleted: of 1972
Deleted: must certify “that there is a reasonable assurance that the activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate water quality standards” (40 CFR 121.2(a)(3)). Water Quality Certifications must be based on the findings that a proposed discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 7
based on limited distribution; declining populations; diminishing habitat; or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for assessing development projects for their potential to impact listed species and their habitats. State-listed special-status species are addressed through the issuance of a 2081 permit (Memorandum of Understanding).

In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act (CFGC § 2800 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in Southern California. The NCCP program was established “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the CFGC, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake” (CFGC § 1602).

CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources (e.g., riparian or wetland areas not supported by a river, lake, or stream). CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to the applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513, 3801, 4700, 5050, and 5515 CDFW protects and manages fish, wildlife, and native plant resources within California. The California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW are responsible for issuing permits for the take or possession of protected species. The following sections of the CFGC address protected species: Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and Section 5515 (fish). In addition, the protection of birds of prey is provided for in Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the CFGC.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code § 13000 et seq.) provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 8
Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if a Section 404 permit is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

Regional and Local Plans
Western Riverside MSHCP
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation/planning program for Western Riverside County. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special-status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to special-status species and associated native habitats.

Through agreements with the USFWS and CDFW, the MSHCP designates 146 special-status animal and plant species as Covered Species, of which the majority have no project-specific survey/conservation requirements. The MSHCP provides mitigation for project-specific impacts to these species for projects that are compliant/consistent with MSHCP requirements, such that the impacts are reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to CEQA.

The Covered Species that are not yet adequately conserved have additional requirements for these species to ultimately be considered ‘adequately conserved’. A number of these species have survey requirements based on a project’s occurrence within a designated MSHCP survey area and/or based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.3), as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2) identified by the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas (CAPSSA); animal species (burrowing owl, mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates) identified by survey areas (MSHCP Volume I, Section

6.3.2); and species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and three species of fairy shrimp (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2). An additional 28 species (MSHCP Volume I, Table 9.3) not yet adequately conserved have species-specific objectives for the species to become adequately conserved.

However, these species do not have project-specific survey requirements.

The goal of the MSHCP is to have a total Conservation Area in excess of 500,000 acres, including approximately 347,000 acres on existing Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands, and approximately 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands targeted within the MSHCP Criteria Area. The MSHCP is divided into 16 separate Area Plans, each with its own conservation goals and objectives. Within each Area Plan, the Criteria Area is divided into Subunits, and further divided into Criteria Cells and Cell Groups (a group of criteria cells). Each Cell Group and ungrouped, independent Cell has designated “criteria” for the purpose of targeting additional conservation lands for acquisition. Projects located within the Criteria Area are subject to the

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 9
Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process to determine if lands are targeted for inclusion in the MSHCP Reserve. In addition, all projects located within the Criteria Area are subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process, where the project is reviewed by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to determine overall compliance/consistency with the biological requirements of the MSHCP.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 10
3 Methods
On April 22 and May 12, 2021, RBC biologists surveyed the project site and conducted vegetation mapping, a general biological survey, and habitat assessments for special-status plant and wildlife species, including species associated with MSHCP survey areas and MSHCP- designated riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitats.

Additionally, RBC regulatory specialists conducted an initial jurisdictional assessment of the project site including a 100-foot buffer on April 22, 2021 and a formal aquatic resources delineation on June 3 and 7, 2021 to identify any areas that may be considered jurisdictional under the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and the CDFW pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 – 1602 of the CFGC to comply with CEQA and MSHCP requirements. RBC regulatory specialists also assessed the project site for MSHCP-designated riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitats, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, during the formal aquatic resources delineation.

3.1 DATABASE SEARCH
Prior to conducting field surveys, existing information regarding biological resources present or potentially present within the project area was obtained through a review of pertinent literature and databases, including, but not limited to:
• CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2021a) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2021) • USFWS Special-status Species Database (USFWS 2021a)
• USFWS IPaC Database (USFWS 2021b)
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database (USFWS 2021c) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Survey Database (NRCS 2021)
• Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map (RCA 2021a) • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2020)
The CNDDB and USFWS database queries were conducted for the project site plus a 1-mile radius. The CNPS Electronic Inventory search was conducted for the USGS 7.5’ El Casco quadrangle for an elevation range of approximately 2,400 to 2,600 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The potential for special-status species, including MSHCP covered species, to occur within the project site was refined by considering the habitat affinities of each species, field habitat assessments, vegetation mapping, and knowledge of local biological resources.

3.2 RCA MSHCP INFORMATION MAP QUERY
The RCA MSCHP Information Map was used to compare the project footprint against any mapped survey or conservation areas as established in the MSHCP. These areas include Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA); Burrowing Owl, Mammals, Amphibians, and Invertebrate survey areas (MSHCP

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 11
Volume I, Section 6.3.2); and Cellgroups and Criteria Cells. Per compliance with the MSHCP, the project would require habitat assessments and/or focused surveys according to this query and compliance with additional project review processes as prescribed by Criteria Cells.

3.3 VEGETATION MAPPING AND GENERAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
RBC biologists conducted vegetation mapping in the field to provide a baseline of the biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur within the project site on April 22, 2021 (Figure 2). RBC conducted vegetation mapping by walking throughout the project site and mapping vegetation communities on aerial photographs at a 1:2400 scale (1 inch = 200 feet).

The extent of each habitat type (delineated as a habitat polygon on the vegetation maps) was calculated using the ArcGIS Collector Geographic Information System (GIS). Habitats were classified based on the dominant and characteristic plant species in accordance with vegetation community classifications outlined in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) and consistent with MSHCP vegetation mapping classification.

RBC biologists conducted a general biological survey for plants and wildlife concurrently with vegetation mapping on April 22, 2021. Photos taken during the general biological survey are provided in Appendix A. Plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notebooks. Plant species that could not be identified were brought to the laboratory for identification using the dichotomous keys in the Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012) and following the taxonomic treatment of the Jepson Manual with input from the Western Riverside County Annotated Checklist (Roberts 2004). A complete list of the vascular plant species observed during all site visits to the project site is presented in Appendix B.

Wildlife species were documented during the field survey by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs, and were recorded in field notebooks. Binoculars (10X42 magnification) were used to aid in the identification of wildlife. In addition to species observed during the surveys, RBC assessed the expected wildlife use of the project site based on known habitat preferences of local species and knowledge of their biogeographic distribution in the region. A complete list of wildlife species observed during all visits to the project site is presented in Appendix B; scientific and common names of wildlife follow CDFW’s Special Animals List (CDFW 2021b).

3.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES SURVEYS
The locations of observed biological resources designated as special-status by the USFWS, CDFW, CNPS, and/or the MSHCP, were recorded in field notebooks, on aerial maps, and/or using the geographic information system (GIS) application ArcGIS Collector.

MARVIN’S ONION AND MANY-STEMMED DUDLEYA HABITAT ASSESSMENT &

SURVEYS
The RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the project is located within a NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya (RCA 2021a). On April 22 and May 12, 2021 RBC qualified botanists assessed the suitability of habitat within the project site to support MSHCP Narrow Endemic species Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya and surveyed the site for

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 12
each species. The project site was walked and assessed for the presence of suitable habitat and species. The surrounding 100-foot buffer was surveyed via binoculars for the potential to support special-status floral species.

BURROWING OWL SURVEYS
The RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the project is located within a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area (RCA 2021a). RBC assessed the project site for suitable burrowing owl habitat on April 22, 2021 in accordance with the Western Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2005). As a result, RBC conducted protocol burrowing owl surveys during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31). RBC biologists conducted four surveys between May 12, 2021 and July 6, 2021 (Appendix C). Surveys were not conducted during rain, dense fog, or when high winds were greater than 20 miles per hour.

RBC biologists walked transects spaced 7-20 meters (20-60 feet) apart through suitable burrowing owl habitat within the project site plus a 500-foot buffer. RBC biologists used binoculars (10x42) to scan the survey area for owls, active and potential burrows, and/or sign of owls. RBC examined all suitable burrows for sign, including feathers, pellets, excrement (e.g., scat and whitewash), and prey remains. RBC considered burrows to be active if a burrowing owl was observed at or near the entrance or if evidence of recent sign was present. Biologists documented all suitable burrows in ArcGIS Collector.

LEAST BELL’S VIREO SURVEYS
On April 22, 2021 RBC assessed the project site for species associated with riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitat as defined by Volume 1, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP; USFWS protocol- level surveys for least Bell’s vireo were initiated on the same day following the observation of an individual least Bell’s vireo male in the southwestern drainage. Based on this siting, protocol surveys for the species were conducted thereafter to determine the status of the species on-site (Appendix D). RBC conducted protocol surveys within suitable riparian habitat in the western portion of the project site, as well as a 500-foot buffer. Surveys were completed between April 22, 2021 and July 16, 2021. RBC conducted the surveys in accordance with the USFWS Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001).

3.5 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION
RBC conducted a formal aquatic resources delineation per the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW regulations, guidelines, and protocols on June 3 and 7, 2021 to identify any areas that may be considered jurisdictional under the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFGC (Appendix E).

Prior to the formal aquatic resources delineation, field maps were created using GIS and a color aerial photograph at a 1:150 scale. RBC also reviewed USGS NHD (USGS 2020) and topography data, USFWS NWI data (USFWS 2021c), and NRCS soils data (NRCS 2021; Appendix F) to further determine the potential locations of aquatic resources within the project site and the surrounding 100-foot buffer. RBC also utilized Google Earth Pro to assess current

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 13
and historic presence or absence of flows and/or ponding in the project site and buffer (Google Earth Pro 2021).

Staff evaluated all areas with depressions, drainage patterns, wetland vegetation, and/or riparian vegetation within the project site and buffer for potential jurisdictional status, with focus on the presence of defined channels and/or wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation, soils, and hydrology.

Lateral limits of potential non-wetland waters of the U.S. for the Corps and the RWQCB were identified using field indicators of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as outlined in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Corps 2008a). Additionally, staff examined potential Corps and RWQCB jurisdictional wetland areas using the routine determination methods set forth in Part IV, Section D, Subsection 2 of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0 (Corps 2008b), and The State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021).

CDFW potential jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of lake and/or streambed and riparian habitat or wetland areas supported by (i.e., adjacent or connected to) a lake or streambed, based on the definition of streambed as outlined at 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 1.72 and in the 1987 Rutherford v. State of California decision (188 Cal. App. 3d 1268).

Complete methods are presented in the Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (Beaumont Summit Station ARDR; RBC 2022a; Appendix E).

Formatted: Not Highlight
Deleted: 1

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 14
4 Results

4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
The project site is composed of nine parcels that support several upland and wetland vegetation communities. On-site elevations range from approximately 2,400 to 2,600 feet amsl.

Seven soil types occur on-site varying in percent slopes (Appendix F).

The flat areas of the project site are primarily dominated non-native grassland and developed habitats. The canyons and drainages within the project site are composed primarily of mulefat thickets and non-native riparian, with some occurrences of Riversidean sage scrub.

Surrounding land uses include open space, agriculture, and residential development. The non- native grassland in the northern and southern portions of the project appear to be regularly disked.

4.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USES
The project site supports ten vegetation communities and other land covers, as classified in accordance with Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) and consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping classification (Table 2).

Vegetation within the project site is predominantly comprised of non-native grassland.

Table 2. Summary of Vegetation within the Beaumont Summit Station Project Site Vegetation Community/Land Use Project Site
(acres)
Upland
Chamise Chaparral >0.01
Developed 48.70
Disturbed 1.50
Eucalyptus Woodland 0.12
Non-native Grassland 134.54
Riversidean Sage Scrub 0.24
Torrey’s Scrub Oak Stands 1.10
Riparian
Blue Elderberry Stands 0.30
Mulefat Scrub 2.14
Non-native Riparian 2.32
Total 190.991
1 Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Upland Vegetation Communities
Chamise Chaparral
This chaparral vegetation community (>0.01 acre) is overwhelmingly dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). Within the project site, the chamise chaparral contains some Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", First line: 0", Right: 1.24"

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 15
individuals of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and it occurs along the northwestern project boundary. Chamise chaparral continues as patches within non-native grassland west of the project.

Developed
Developed land (48.70 acres) within the project site does not support native vegetation and includes human-made structures. Within the project site, developed habitat includes the buildings and paved surfaces associated with the former agricultural operations.

Disturbed
Disturbed land (1.50 acres) is typically classified as land on which the native vegetation has been significantly altered by agriculture, construction, or other land-clearing activities, and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed phase of a plant association (e.g. disturbed Riversidean sage scrub). Disturbed habitat is typically found in vacant lots, along roadsides, within construction staging areas, and in abandoned fields. The habitat is typically dominated by non-native annual species and perennial broadleaf species.

Disturbed habitat on the project site occurs within the gravel driveways and staging areas that support the sparse growth of non-native grasses and forbaceous species. A few Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) also occur within the driveway near the eastern entrance to the project site off of Cherry Valley Boulevard.

Eucalyptus Woodland
Eucalyptus woodland (Eucalyptus spp.) habitat (0.12 acre) ranges from single-species thickets with little or no shrubby understory to scattered trees over a well-developed herbaceous and shrubby understory. In most cases, eucalyptus forms a dense stand with a closed canopy.

Eucalyptus species produces a large amount of leaf and bark litter, the chemical and physical characteristics of which limit the ability of other species to grow in the understory, decreasing floristic diversity. A large stand of eucalyptus woodland occurs west of the project site towards I-10; the eastern extent of the large stand occurs along the western border of the project site.

Non-native Grassland
The non-native grassland within the project site (134.54 acres) is dominated by ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) but also contains occurrences of other non-native grass and forbaceous species such as red brome (Bromus rubens), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Rigid fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii) was observed within the non-native grassland habitat growing out of the topographical depressions in the western portion of project site. The project site is frequently mowed and had been grazed in the past using cattle, keeping non-native grasses and ruderal species fairly low to the ground. Non- native grassland occurs throughout much of the project site.

Riversidean Sage Scrub
Riversidean sage scrub (0.24 acre) is a form of coastal sage scrub found in Riverside County consisting of low, soft shrubs. The project site supports small patches of Riversidean sage scrub that are dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 16
buckwheat and contain non-native grasses between shrubs. Riversidean sage scrub is found in the southwestern portion of the project site and off-site along the southern project boundary.

Torrey’s Scrub Oak Stands
Mature individuals of Torrey’s scrub oak (Quercus x acutidens) form distinct stands (1.10 acres) occurring along the upper banks of canyons and drainages within the western portion of the project. Torrey’s scrub oak is a small oak tree and on-site Torrey’s scrub oak do not exceed 25 feet in height. Non-native grasses occur as the understory between individual trees. The stands of Torrey’s scrub oak within the project site do not represent a specific vegetation community (e.g., scrub oak chaparral), but are a monotypic stand of trees that are functionally distinct from the surrounding non-native grassland habitat.

Riparian Vegetation Communities
Blue Elderberry Stands
Individual stands of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) occur within the project site (0.30 acre). Blue elderberry is a tall woody shrub that can grow up to 25 feet tall. The blue elderberry trees within the project site do not represent a specific vegetation community, rather a monotypic stand of trees that are functionally distinct from the surrounding non-native grassland habitat. Blue elderberry is not a hydrophytic, or wetland-exclusive, plant species; it can be found growing in both upland and riparian habitats. However, this stand of trees is included in the riparian community discussion for the purposes of this analysis due to its location exclusively within the drainages in the project site.

Mulefat Scrub
Mulefat scrub (2.14 acres) consists of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) as the dominant or co- dominant species within a continuous shrub canopy or thicket. A few isolated, individual willows (Salix spp.) also occur within the continuous mulefat scrub. The herbaceous layer is typically sparse. The mulefat scrub within the project site is approximately 10-15 feet in height and co- occurs with the blue elderberry stands and non-native riparian vegetation within the canyons and drainages in the southwest.

Non-native Riparian
This habitat includes densely vegetated riparian thickets dominated by non-native, invasive species. Within the project site, non-native riparian habitat (2.32 acres) consists of a monotypic stands of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), occurring within the drainages in the southwestern portion of the project. Tree of heaven are large trees with some individuals exceeding 30 feet in height. Virtually no understory occurs within the stands of tree of heaven that occur within the project site.

4.3 PLANTS AND WILDLIFE
The project area supports a low diversity of vegetation communities and plant species diversity.

A total of 29 plant species (46 percent native, 54 percent non-native) were observed during project biological surveys (Appendix B). A total of 43 bird species, one reptile species, two

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 17
mammal species, and one invertebrate species were observed or presumed present based on track and/or scat (Appendix B). Twilight/nighttime surveys were not conducted, therefore crepuscular and nocturnal animals are likely under-represented in the project species list; however, habitat assessments were performed for all special-status species to ensure that any potentially-present rare species are adequately addressed herein.

Special-status biological resources are those defined as follows:
1) Species that have been given special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations due to limited, declining, or threatened/endangered population sizes;
2) Species and habitat types recognized by local and regional resource agencies as sensitive;
3) Habitat areas or vegetation communities that are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife;
4) Wildlife corridors and habitat linkages; and/or
5) Biological resources that may or may not be considered sensitive, but are regulated under local, state, and/or federal laws.

For the purposes of this report, species are considered to have special-status if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed or considered for listing or proposed for listing under the ESA or CESA (CDFW 2021b; USFWS 2021a)
• Included on the CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2021a) • CDFW Species of Special Concern (CDFW 2021a)
• CDFW Fully Protected Species (CDFW 2021a)
• Listed as having a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR; formerly CNPS List, CNPS 2021)
• Western Riverside MSHCP Section 9.2 Covered Species List (RCA 2003)

4.3.1 NARROW ENDEMIC AND FEDERALLY/STATE LISTED PLANT SPECIES The project site occurs within the NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya, which are MSHCP narrow endemic plant species. A habitat assessment and focused survey for both Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya was conducted on April 22, 2021 and a second focused survey was conducted on May 12, 2021. No suitable habitat for these species was observed within the project site and no occurrences of either species was observed. The potential for these plants to occur is further addressed in Table 3. No other MSCHP narrow endemic plant species were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site or have the potential to occur within the project site.

No federally or state listed threatened or endangered plants were observed during general biological surveys and none have a moderate or high potential to occur on the project site

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 18
based on the lack of suitable habitats. Additionally, there are no records of federally or state listed species occurring within or immediately adjacent to the project site.

Table 3. Assessment of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Many-stemmed
dudleya (Dudleya
multicaulis)

WRC, CRPR
1B.2
Perennial herb. Blooms Apr-
July. Coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, valley grassland.

Elevation 50-855 ft.

No potential to occur. Sage scrub
habitat on-site is minimal, and the
site occurs outside the species’
elevation range. Additionally,
species was not observed during
surveys (RBC 2021).

Yucaipa onion
(Allium marvinii)

WRC, CRPR
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb.

Blooms Jan-July. Chaparral.
2,495-3,495 ft.

No potential to occur. No suitable
chaparral habitat on-site and was
not observed during surveys (RBC
2021).

California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1B: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

CRPR Threat Ranks

0.1: Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2: Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

FE: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federally Endangered Species FT: ESA Federally Threatened Species
SE: California Endangered Species Act (CESA) State Endangered Species ST: CESA Federally Threatened Species
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
WRC: Western Riverside County MSHCP-covered species

4.3.2 NON-FEDERALLY/STATE LISTED SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Other special-status plant species include those that are California Species of Special Concern (SSC) or are a CRPR List 1 or 2 (CNPS 2021). The CRPR system was created by the CNPS, which is a statewide resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California's sensitive plant species. The CRPR system is recognized by the CDFW and essentially serves as an early warning list of potential candidate species for threatened or endangered status. The CRPR system is categorized as outlined in Table 4.

No non-federally/state listed plant species have a moderate or high potential to occur on the project site based on the lack of suitable habitats. Non-federally/state-listed special-status plants with the potential to occur on site are provided in Table 5. Additionally, there are no records of non-federally or state listed special status species occurring within or immediately adjacent to the project site.

Deleted: California Native Plant Society (
Deleted: )

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 19
Table 4. California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Definitions
California Rare Plant Rank
(CRPR)
1A presumed extirpated in California and rare or extinct elsewhere
1B rare, threatened, or endangered in California and
elsewhere
2A presumed extirpated in California but more common
elsewhere
2B rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
3 plants for which more information needed
4 plants of limited distribution
CRPR Threat Ranks

0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of
occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy
of threat)

0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80%
occurrences threatened / moderate degree and
immediacy of threat)

0.3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no
current threats known)

Table 5. Assessment of Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Coulter’s goldfields
(Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri)

WRC, CRPR
1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms Feb-
June. Marshes and swamps,
playas, vernal pools. Elevation
5-4,005 ft.

No potential to occur. No suitable
marsh or vernal pool habitat on-
site.

Horn’s milk-vetch
(Astragalus hornii
var. hornii)
CRPR 1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms May-
Oct. Alkali sink, wetland-
riparian.

No potential to occur. No alkali sink
habitat on-site.

Jaeger’s milk-
vetch (Astragalus
pachypus var.
jaegeri)

WRC, CRPR
1B.1
Perennial shrub. Blooms Dec-
June. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation 1,200-3,200 ft.

Low. Grassland habitat on-site is
highly disturbed and scrub habitat
is minimal.

Parry’s spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi)

WRC, CRPR
1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms Apr-
June. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation 900-4,005 ft.

Low. Grassland habitat on-site is
highly disturbed and scrub habitat
is minimal.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 20
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
San Bernardino
aster
(Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Blooms July-Nov. Cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, marshes and swamps,
meadows and seeps, valley
and foothill grasslands.

Elevation 5-6,695 ft.

Low. Grassland habitat on-site is
highly disturbed and scrub habitat
is minimal.

Smooth tarplant
(Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis)

WRC, CRPR
1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms Apr-Sep.

Shadscale scrub, alkali sink,
valley grassland. Elevation
330- 2,000 ft.

No potential to occur. Grassland
habitat on-site is highly disturbed,
and the site occurs outside the
species elevation range.

Spiny-hair blazing
star (Mentzelia
tricuspis)
CRPR 2B.1 Annual herb. Blooms Mar-
May. Creosote bush scrub.

No potential to occur. No creosote
bush scrub on-site.

California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1B: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

CRPR Threat Ranks

0.1: Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2: Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

FE: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federally Endangered Species FT: ESA Federally Threatened Species
SE: California Endangered Species Act (CESA) State Endangered Species ST: CESA Federally Threatened Species
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
WRC: Western Riverside County MSHCP-covered species

4.3.3 FEDERALLY/STATE LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES
One federally and state endangered species, least bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), was detected during protocol-level surveys the project site; the results of the protocol least Bell’s vireo are discussed below (Figure 2). No other federally or state listed wildlife species were documented on or adjacent to the site during the various biological surveys or are expected to occur based on the disturbed nature of the site and limited native habitat. CNDDB and USFWS database results do not identify federally or state listed wildlife within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Historical occurrences of Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), coastal Californica gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), southwestern willow flycatcher, southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica), and crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) have been recorded within one to three miles of the project site (Figure 4A and 4B; CDFW 2021a, USFWS 2021a) but none of these species are expected on site due to the lack of suitable habitat (Table 6). No other federally or state listed species have potential to occur on the project site.

No USFWS designated critical habitat occurs within or immediately adjacent the project site, or within three miles of the project site (Figure 4B).

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 21
Table 6. Assessment of Federally/State Listed Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur

INVERTEBRATES
Crotch bumble
bee (Bombus
crotchii)
SCE Arid shrublands and grasslands
in coastal and foothill areas of
southern California. Nectar
plants include milkweeds,
buckwheat, and lupines.

Low to moderate potential to
occur. Suitable arid grassland
and shrubland present on site;
however nectar plants limited.

REPTILES
Southern rubber
boa (Charina
umbratica)
WRC, ST Found in oak and conifer forests
at elevations between 5,00 and
8,00 feet.

Low. Suitable habitat and
elevations not present.

BIRDS
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
(Polioptila
californica
californica)

WRC, FT,
SSC
Found in sage scrub habitats,
often on slopes. Nests in shrubs
including sagebrush,
buckwheat, and sage.

Low. Although Riversidean sage
scrub is present on site, habitat
is extremely limited and
fragmented, and not of
adequate size/quality to support
this species.

Least Bell's vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)

WRC, FE
(when
nesting);
SE (when
nesting)
Riparian woodland with
understory of dense young
willows or mulefat and willow
canopy. Nests often placed
along internal or external edges
of riparian thickets.

Individual male observed during
early focused surveys during
2021 biological surveys (surveys
1 and 2 of 8 focused surveys).

No females or nesting observed.

Southwestern
willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii
extimus)

WRC, FE,
SE (when
nesting)
Found in dense riparian
woodlands and forests. Often
nests on or near lakes, streams,
and rivers.

Very low to no potential. Suitable
dense riparian forest habitat not
present.

Western yellow-
billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus)

WRC, FT,
SE
Found in wooded riparian
habitat with dense cover and
water nearby, including
woodlands with low, scrubby,
vegetation, overgrown orchards,
abandoned farmland, and
dense thickets along streams
and marshes. Nests in willows
with deep understory foliage
with nearby cottonwood forests
for foraging.

Very low to no potential. Suitable
dense riparian forest habitat not
present.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 22
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur

MAMMALS
Stephens'
kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
stephensi)
WRC, FE;
ST
Habitats include annual
grassland and coastal sage
scrub with sparse shrub cover.

Commonly in association with
Eriogonum fasciculatum,
Artemisia californica, and
Erodium cicutarium, in areas
with loose, friable, well-drained
soil, and flat or gently rolling
terrain.

Low potential to occur.

Grassland habitat present;
however, burrow consistent with
this species not observed during
2021 biological surveys.

FE: Federally Endangered (FE) Species under the Endangered Species Act FT: Federally Threatened (FT) Species under the Endangered Species Act SE: State Endangered (SE) under the California Endangered Species Act SCE: State candidate for Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ST: State Threatened (ST) under the California Endangered Species Act FP: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fully Protected (FP) Species SSC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (SSC) WL: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List (WL) Species Least Bell’s Vireo
Suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo within the project site is primarily composed of mulefat scrub and non-native riparian vegetation. An individual male least Bell’s vireo was observed in mulefat scrub within a drainage in the southwestern portion of the site during the first two of eight focused surveys, on April 22 and May 6, 2021 (Figure 2). The individual was observed foraging and moving frequently along the mulefat canopy. The lack of observations following the first two least Bell’s vireo surveys suggests that this bird was an early season migrant that did not establish a nesting territory within the project area. No female vireo or active nests were detected during protocol surveys. Complete results from the protocol least Bell’s vireo survey are included as Appendix C.

Least bell’s vireo is covered under the MSHCP as it is also associated with MSCHP riparian/riverine habitat.

4.3.4 NON-FEDERALLY/STATE LISTED SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES The non-federally/state listed special-status wildlife species observed on site during biological surveys include coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeris), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii); these species are also MSCHP-covered species. No other non-federally/state listed special-status wildlife species were observed during biological surveys. Wildlife species observed during the field survey are presented in Appendix B.

The non-federally/state listed special-status wildlife species with moderate to high potential to occur include orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 23
ludovicianus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). All of these species are covered species under the MSHCP with the exception of southern California legless lizard. Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur on the project site are assessed in Table 7.

Table 7. Assessment of Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur

AMPHIBIANS
Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
WRC,
SSC
Temporary ponds, vernal pools,
and backwaters of flowing
creeks, as well as adjacent
upland habitats such as
grasslands and coastal sage
scrub for burrowing.

Low to moderate potential to
occur. Suitable riparian habitats
and adjacent upland habitats are
limited.

REPTILES
Coastal whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
WRC,
SSC
A variety of rocky, sandy, dry
habitats including sage scrub,
chaparral, woodlands on friable
loose soil.

Present. Observed during 2021
biological surveys.

Coast horned
lizard (Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
WRC,
SSC
A variety of habitats including
sage scrub, chaparral, and
coniferous and broadleaf
woodlands. Found on sandy or
friable soils with open scrub.

Requires open areas, bushes,
and fine loose soil.

Low potential to occur. Suitable
habitats are not present on site;
and species is more common
near the coast.

Orange-throated
whiptail
(Aspidoscelis
hyperythra)
WRC, WL A variety of habitats including
sage scrub, chaparral, and
coniferous and broadleaf
woodlands. Found on sandy or
friable soils with open scrub.

Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable scrub and woodland
habitats present.

Southern California
legless lizard
(Anniella stebbinsi)
SSC A variety of habitats including
scrublands, woodlands, and
sandy washes. This species
requires moisture near the
ground surface and is often
found under plant litter or
debris.

Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable woodland and sandy
wash habitat present on site.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 24
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
BIRDS
Burrowing owl
(Athene
cunicularia)
WRC,
SSC (at
burrowing
sites &
some
wintering
sites)
Found in grasslands and open
scrub from the coast to foothills.

Strongly associated with
California ground squirrel
(Otospermophilus beecheyi) and
other fossorial mammal
burrows.

Not present. Species not
observed during focused 2021
surveys, however suitable
grasslands and open scrub
habitat with ground squirrel
burrows present on site.

California horned
lark (Eremophila
alpestris actia)
WRC, WL Found from coastal deserts and
grasslands to alpine dwarf-
shrub habitat above treeline.

Also seen in coniferous or
chaparral habitats.

Present. Species observed on
site during 2021 biological
surveys.

Cooper’s hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)

WRC, WL
(when
nesting)
Usually in oak woodlands but
occasionally in willow or
eucalyptus woodlands.

Present. Species observed on
site during 2021 biological
surveys.

Golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)

WRC, FP,
WL (when
nesting
and
wintering)
Found in arid scrublands and
grasslands. Requires cliffs to
nest.

Low. Suitable cliff habitat
required to nest or roost is not
present on site or immediately
adjacent.

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius
ludovicianus)
WRC,
SSC
(when
nesting)
Found within grassland,
chaparral, desert, and desert
edge scrub, particularly near
dense vegetation used for
nesting.

Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable foraging habitat is
present on site.

Purple martin
(Progne subis)
WRC,
SSC
(when
nesting)
Found in forests and woodlands
and desert areas. Requires
nesting cavities.

Low potential to occur.

Southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow (Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens)
WRC, WL Found in arid, moderate to
steep rocky terrain with
scattered shrub and grass
cover.

Low potential to occur. Suitable
steep rocky terrain not present.

White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus)

WRC, FP
(when
nesting)
Found in a variety of habitats
including grasslands, marshes,
and rangelands. Nests in large
trees.

Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable open grassland habitat
with suitable nesting trees
present on site.

Yellow warbler
(Setophaga
petechia)
WRC,
SSC
(when
nesting)
Nests in riparian habitats and
bordering habitats often
containing willows,
cottonwoods, and sycamore
trees.

Present. Species observed on
site during 2021 biological
surveys.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 25
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Yellow-breasted
chat (Icteria virens)
WRC,
SSC
(when
nesting)
Nests in dense riparian habitats
and adjacent habitats often
containing mulefat and willows.

Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable mulefat scrub habitat
present on site.

MAMMALS
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
(Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus)
WRC,
SSC
Found in low elevation
grassland, alluvial sage scrub,
and coastal sage scrub.

Requires friable soils for
burrowing.

Low potential to occur. Alluvial
sage scrub not present;
however, grassland and
Riversidean sage scrub habitat
present. Sign was not observed
during 2021 project biological
surveys.

Northwestern San
Diego pocket
mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
WRC,
SSC
Found in desert scrub and rocky
areas with sandy soils suitable
for burrowing. Forages on seeds
of forbs, grasses, and shrubs.

Low potential to occur. Desert
scrub and rocky habitat not
present on site.

San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit
(Lepus californicus
bennettii)
WRC,
SSC
Habitats include early stages of
chaparral, open coastal sage
scrub, and grasslands near the
edges of brush. Uses open land
but requires some shrubs for
cover.

Present. Species observed on
site during 2021 biological
surveys.

Southern
grasshopper
mouse
(Onychomys
torridus ramona)
SSC Occurs primarily in desert scrub
habitats. Habitats with low open
and semi-open scrubs habitats
including coastal sage scrub,
mixed chaparral, low sagebrush,
riparian scrub, and annual
grassland with scattered shrubs,
are less frequently inhabited by
this species.

Low potential to occur. Although
grassland and scrub habitats are
present on site, suitable desert
habitat with friable soils are
lacking.

FE: Federally Endangered (FE) Species under the Endangered Species Act FT: Federally Threatened (FT) Species under the Endangered Species Act SE: State Endangered (SE) under the California Endangered Species Act SCE: State candidate for Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ST: State Threatened (ST) under the California Endangered Species Act FP: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fully Protected (FP) Species SSC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (SSC) WL: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List (WL) Species Burrowing Owl
The RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the project is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Suitable burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation (Zarn 1974). Suitable burrowing owl habitat may also include trees and shrubs if the canopy covers

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 26
less than 30 percent of the ground surface. Burrows are the essential component of burrowing owl habitat; both natural and artificial burrows provide protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owl (Henny and Blus 1981). Burrowing owl typically use burrows made by rodents, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but may also use human-made structures, such as concrete culverts; concrete, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath concrete or asphalt pavement.

Suitable habitat for burrowing owl was observed within the project site. California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), colonial burrows and burrows of a suitable size to support burrowing owl were observed throughout the non-native grassland within the project site. Therefore, protocol burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31) in accordance with the MSHCP. California ground squirrels were active during all surveys, although increased activity was observed along the southern portion of the project site. Although the project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl, no burrowing owl(s) or burrowing owl sign were observed on site during the protocol surveys. The results of the protocol burrowing owl surveys are included as Appendix D.

4.4 JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES
Potential Corps-, RWQCB-, and CDFW-jurisdictional resources (Non-Wetland Water [NWW-]1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW- 3B1) occur on site (Figures 3A to 3C; Appendix E).

The project site supports approximately 0.78 acre (7,026 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the U.S. jurisdictional by the Corps (Table 8, Figure 3A) and approximately 7.51 acres (7,026 linear feet) of vegetated streambed and 0.97 acre of riparian habitat jurisdictional by the CDFW (Table 9, Figure 3B). Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project (Santa Ana RWQCB 2022), the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the limits of the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat). As such, the project site supports approximately 7.51 acres (7,026 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the State and 0.97 acre of associated riparian habitat jurisdictional by the RWQCB (Table 10, Figure 3C). Further details are presented in the Beaumont Summit Station ARDR (RBC 2022a; Appendix E).

Table 8. Aquatic Resource Summary Table: Corps
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width
Range
(Feet)
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation1
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet
NWW-1 R6 4 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965908,
-117.025153 0.01 71
NWW-1A R6 6 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.966006,
-117.025084 0.01 73
NWW-2 R6 3 – 4 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964929,
-117.023925 0.08 905
Deleted: /State
Deleted: and RWQCB, respectively
Deleted: s
Deleted: and 9
Deleted: s
Deleted: and 3B
Deleted: ,
Deleted: 10
Deleted: C
Deleted: 2

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 27
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width
Range
(Feet)
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation1
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet
NWW-2A R6 1 – 2 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub 33.964977,
-117.022656 <0.01 168
NWW-2B R6 3 – 3 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965185,
-117.022994 0.01 175
NWW-2C R6 3 – 3 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964845,
-117.023224 0.01 109
NWW-3 R6 4 – 8 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.962391,
-117.021747 0.37 2,553
NWW-3A R6 3 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.962760,
-117.018132 0.15 1,290
NWW-3B R6 4 – 4 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub 33.963540,
-117.022834 0.12 1,273
NWW-3B1 R6 1 – 4 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964055,
-117.021934 0.03 409
Total2 0.78 7,026
1 See Figure 2 for all vegetation communities present within each aquatic resource. 2 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Table 9. Aquatic Resource Summary Table: CDFW
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource Type
Vegetation
Community
Width
Range1
(Feet)
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet2
NWW-1 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 9 – 21 33.965912,
-117.025153 0.02 71
NWW-1A Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 8 – 30 33.966014,
-117.025085 0.03 73
NWW-2 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 15 – 60

33.964951,
-117.023674 0.63
905
Torrey’s Scrub Oak 33.964834,
-117.024985 0.08
NWW-2A
Vegetated
Streambed
Mulefat Scrub
1 – 2

33.964970,
-117.022752 <0.01
168 Non-native
Grassland

33.965173,
-117.023011 <0.01
Riparian Habitat3 Mulefat Scrub N/A 33.964966,
-117.022542 0.03 –
NWW-2B Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 9 – 49 33.964825,
-117.023223 0.08 175
NWW-2C Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 20 – 47 33.962269,
-117.020283 0.07 109
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 1
Formatted: Superscript
Deleted: 10
Deleted: 2
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Normal
Deleted: 24
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Normal
Deleted: 4
Deleted: 5
Deleted: 33.964951,¶
-117.023674
Deleted: 82
Deleted: 33.964834,¶
-117.024985
Deleted: 33.964966,¶
-117.022542
Deleted: 32
Deleted: 33.964970,¶
-117.022752
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Normal
Deleted: 10
Deleted: 28
Deleted: 33.965173,¶
-117.023011
Deleted: 50
Deleted: 19
Deleted: 0
Deleted: 33.964825,¶
-117.023223
Deleted: 93

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 28
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource Type
Vegetation
Community
Width
Range1
(Feet)
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet2
NWW-3
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland
12 – 140

33.962377,
-117.022101 2.35
2,553
Mulefat Scrub 33.962547,
-117.021943 0.88
Eucalyptus
Woodland

33.963045,
-117.023804 <0.01
Non-native Riparian 33.961260,
-117.018464 1.02
Blue Elderberry
Stands

33.963695,
-117.025272 0.11
Riparian Habitat3
Mulefat Scrub
N/A

33.962322,
-117.022037 0.03
– Non-native Riparian 33.962170,
-117.020330 0.65
Blue Elderberry 33.961528,
-117.018718 0.04
NWW-3A
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 6 – 65

33.963610,
-117.020925 0.87
1,290
Blue Elderberry 33.962783,
-117.018163 0.14
Riparian Habitat3 Blue Elderberry N/A 33.962425,
-117.019001 0.01 –
NWW-3B
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland
20 – 70

33.963566,
-117.022903 0.36
1,273 Mulefat Scrub 33.963562,
-117.023254 0.61
Riversidean Sage
Scrub

33.963522,
-117.022922 0.07
Riparian Habitat3 Mulefat Scrub N/A 33.963617,
-117.022422 0.21 –
NWW-3B1 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 5 – 30 33.964098,
-117.021923 0.18 409
Total4 8.48 7,026
1 Corresponds with the approximate stream bank widths observed during delineation. Width range accounts for entirety of streambed delineated, not individual vegetation communities. 2 Linear feet not calculated for individual aquatic resource type and vegetation community (including riparian habitat that occurs outside of delineated streambed) to avoid redundant linear foot calculation where such areas overlap. 3 Occurs outside of delineated streambed.
4 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Deleted: 33.962547,¶
-117.021943
Deleted: 793
Deleted: 33.963045,¶
-117.023804
Deleted: 33.963695,¶
-117.025272
Deleted: 33.962377, -117.022101
Deleted: 33.962170,¶
-117.020330
Deleted: 33.961528,¶
-117.018718
Deleted: 33.962322,¶
-117.022037
Deleted: Stands
Deleted: 33.962269,¶
-117.020283
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 33.962783,¶
-117.018163
Deleted: 61
Deleted: Stands
Deleted: 33.962425,¶
-117.019001
Deleted: Stands
Deleted: 33.962362,¶
-117.019172
Deleted: 6
Deleted: 33.963562,¶
-117.023254
Deleted: 106
Deleted: 33.963617,¶
-117.022422
Deleted: 33.963566,¶
-117.022903
Deleted: 33.963610,¶
-117.020925
Deleted: 6
Deleted: 4
Deleted: 33.964098,¶
-117.021923
Deleted: 365
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 29
Table 10. Aquatic Resource Summary Table: RWQCB
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource
Type1
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width
Range
(Feet)2
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation3
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet4
NWW-1 Non-Wetland
Water R6 9 – 21 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965911,
-117.025160 0.02 71
NWW-1A Non-Wetland
Water R6 8 – 30 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.966014,
-117.025085 0.03 73
NWW-2 Non-Wetland
Water R6 15 – 60 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964934,
-117.023860 0.71 905
NWW-2A
Non-Wetland
Water R6 1 – 2 Yes/No Mulefat
Scrub

33.964970,
-117.022603 <0.01 168
Riparian
Habitat5 RP N/A None Mulefat
Scrub

33.964966,
-117.022542 0.03 –
NWW-2B Non-Wetland
Water R6 9 – 49 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965173,
-117.023011 0.08 175
NWW-2C Non-Wetland
Water R6 20 – 47 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964825,
-117.023223 0.07 109
NWW-3
Non-Wetland
Water R6 12 – 140 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.962631,
-117.022409 4.36 2,553
Riparian
Habitat5 RP N/A None Non-native
Riparian

33.962302,
-117.0218136 0.72 –
NWW-3A
Non-Wetland
Water R6 6 – 65 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.962732,
-117.018281 1.01 1,290
Riparian
Habitat5 RP N/A None Blue
Elderberry

33.962362,
-117.019172 0.01 –
NWW-3B
Non-Wetland
Water R6 20 – 70 Yes/No Mulefat
Scrub

33.963595,
-117.022740 1.04 1,273
Riparian
Habitat5 RP N/A None Mulefat
Scrub

33.963610,
-117.020925 0.21 –
NWW-3B1 Non-Wetland
Water R6 5 – 30 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964098,
-117.021923 0.18 409
Total7 8.48 7,026
1 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat). 2 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the widths of RWQCB-jurisdictional non-wetland waters correspond with the approximate CDFW stream bank widths observed during delineation (i.e., to the top of the channel banks). 3 See Figure 2 for all vegetation communities present within each aquatic resource. 4 Linear feet not calculated for riparian habitat that occurs outside of non-wetland waters to avoid redundant linear foot calculations where such areas overlap.
5 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, RWQCB jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of channel banks and associated riparian habitat). This riparian habitat occurs outside of the delineated non-wetland water (i.e., the top of channel banks). 6 Representative coordinates of riparian habitat associated with NWW-3. See Figure 3C for all riparian habitat associated with NWW-3.
7 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Deleted: ¶
Formatted Table
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 4 – 6
Deleted: 33.965908,¶
-117.025153
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 6 – 6
Deleted: 33.966006,¶
-117.025084
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 3 – 4
Deleted: 33.964929,¶
-117.023925
Deleted: 08
Deleted: 1 – 1
Deleted: 33.964977,¶
-117.022656
Deleted: 3 – 3
Deleted: 33.965185, -117.022994
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 3 – 3
Deleted: 33.964845, -117.023224
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 4 – 8
Deleted: 33.962391, -117.021747
Deleted: 0.37
Deleted: 3 – 6
Deleted: 33.962760, -117.018132
Deleted: 0.15
Deleted: 4 – 4
Deleted: 33.963540, -117.022834
Deleted: 0.12
Deleted: 1 – 4
Deleted: 33.964055, -117.021934
Deleted: 03
Deleted: 0.78
Deleted: 1
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 2

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 30
The project site supports five swales (Swale [S-] 1 through S-5) that are not expected to be jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW since they did not display an observable OHWM, bed and bank, or other evidence of conveying regular flows on site. The project site also supports five basins (Basin [B-] 1 through B-5) that are not expected to be jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW since they did not display an observable OHWM or bed and bank and did not meet the appropriate wetland parameters, and instead displayed cracked soils and some concavity within the otherwise flat landscape indicative of a basin. The project site supports eight severely incised erosional features (Erosional Feature [EF-]1 through EF-8) that are not expected to be jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW since they did not display an observable OHWM or defined bed and bank and do not convey flows downstream. The project site also supports one abandoned ditch (Ditch [D-] 1) that is not expected to be jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW since it displayed a break in bank slope but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other OHWM indicators.

Complete results are presented under separate cover in the Beaumont Summit Station ARDR (RBC 2022a; Appendix E).

4.5 MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS
The project site supports several drainages and riparian areas that meet the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine areas; the project site does not support areas that meet the MHSCP definition of a vernal pool.

The on-site drainages and associated tributaries (NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1; Figure 3B), further described as potentially CDFW-jurisdictional resources above in Section 4.4, meet the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine areas as they contain freshwater flow during “a portion of the year,” specifically after rain events (RCA 2003). Based on the field observations in April and June 2021, the on-site drainages and associated tributaries are expected to convey ephemeral flows (i.e., only in direct response to precipitation). NWW-3 also receives runoff from development south of the review area that is collected and conveyed on site through a culverted storm drain outlet. Note that previously, the on-site drainages and associated tributaries also received runoff from the former on-site agricultural operations (poultry and livestock farm). Based on field observations and a review of Google Earth aerial imagery, USGS NHD data, and USFWS NWI data, flows from NWW-1, NWW-2, and NWW-3 likely continue off site and downstream, flowing into a feature mapped by the USGS NHD as an ephemeral stream that continues for approximately 4 miles until transitioning to an unnamed tributary for approximately 7.5 miles, then connecting with the San Timoteo Wash. The San Timoteo Wash then continues for approximately 6.6 miles before outletting into the Santa Ana River, which ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean (USGS 2020).

Additionally, NWW-2A, NWW-3, NWW-3A, and NWW-3B support riparian habitat dominated by trees or shrubs “which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source” (MSHCP 2003). Specifically, NWW-2A, NWW-3, and NWW-3B support mulefat scrub; NWW-3 supports non-native riparian habitat that is dominated by the invasive tree-of- Deleted: -
Deleted: -
Deleted: -
Deleted: -
Deleted: Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources
Delineation Report …
Deleted: 1
Deleted:

Commented [SK4]: Updated this to match how we state this in DBESP.

Commented [ET5R4]: Got it.

Deleted: features
Deleted: C
Deleted: features

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 31
heaven; and NWW-3 and NWW-3A support blue elderberry stands (Figure 3B). Therefore, the features which are described as CDFW-jurisdictional riparian habitat meet the definition of MSHCP riparian habitat. Additionally, the mulefat scrub within and adjacent to NWW-3 and NWW-3B provide suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo, an MSHCP riparian/riverine wildlife species.

The area of non-native riparian habitat located south of and not adjacent to NWW-3 (0.67 acre) and the small areas of mulefat scrub located south and east of and not adjacent to NWW-3B (0.38 acre) (Figure 5), do not receive “freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year” as they are not located within or directly adjacent to a drainage (RCA 2003). Additionally, these areas are dominated by tree-of-heaven (Facultative Upland [FACU]) and mulefat (Facultative [FAC]), respectively, which are not trees or shrubs that “depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source” (RCA 2003). Therefore, these areas do not fit the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine area.

S-1 through S-5, EF-1 through EF-8, D-1, and B1 through B-5, further described above in Section 4.5, do not meet the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine area, as they did not appear to convey or receive flows, and therefore do not receive “freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year” (RCA 2003). Additionally, they are dominated by non-native grassland vegetation and do not “contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source” (RCA 2003).

No areas within the project site meet the MSHCP definition of a vernal pool. Although B-1 through B-5 are located within concave areas dominated by non-native grassland vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season, obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetland plant species do not dominate these basins during the wet season based on field surveys, the known history of the project site, and a review of historic aerial imagery. Specifically, no obligate hydrophytes were observed within the basins during the April 22, 2021 field survey. Although a few mulefat (FAC) and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca; FAC) were observed within several of the basins, the vegetation was dominated by non-native grasses. Additionally, sometime between 1976 and 1996, a former poultry farm began developing B-1 through B-5 for use as settling basins to hold manure from chickens, pigs, and cattle, a use that would not support establishment of vernal pools. Based on the USDA NRCS, the basins are dominated by Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; terrace escarpments; and Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (Appendix F), soils that are not indicative of a vernal pool.

RBC sampled soils within B-4 within an area exhibiting cracked soils and no hydric soil parameters (Appendix F) during the formal aquatic resources delineation on June 7, 2021, which was representative of the conditions within B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-5.

Additional details regarding the conditions on site are provided in the Beaumont Summit Station ARDR (RBC 2022a; Appendix E).

Deleted: C
Deleted: feature
Deleted: feature
Deleted: Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources
Delineation Report …
Deleted: 1

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 32
5 Impacts
Direct impacts are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place as the project.

Any alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from project- related activities is considered a direct impact. Direct impacts would include direct losses to native habitats, potential jurisdictional waters, wetlands, and special-status species; and diverting natural surface water flows. Direct impacts on wildlife could include injury, death, and/or harassment of listed and/or special-status species. Direct impacts could also include the destruction of habitats necessary for species breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Direct impacts on plants can include crushing of adult plants, bulbs, or seeds.

Indirect impacts can result from project-related activities where biological resources are affected in a manner that is not direct. Indirect impacts may occur later in time or at a place that is farther removed in distance from the project than direct impacts, but indirect impacts are still reasonably foreseeable and attributable to project-related activities. Examples include habitat fragmentation; elevated noise, dust, and lighting levels; changes in hydrology, runoff, and sedimentation; decreased water quality; soil compaction; increased human activity; and the introduction of invasive wildlife (domestic cats and dogs) and plants (weeds).

Cumulative impacts refer to incremental individual environmental effects of two or more projects when considered together. Such impacts taken individually may be minor but are collectively significant in light of regional impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Form J thresholds of significance have been used to determine whether project implementation would result in a significant direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impact.

These thresholds are based on Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines (CCR Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). A significant biological resources impact would occur if the project would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy, or ordinance;
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 33

5.1 IMPACTS ON NATIVE VEGETATION
The proposed project will primarily result in permanent impacts on upland vegetation communities and land uses, including 103.80 acres of non-native grassland and 48.37 acres of developed land (Figure 5, Table 11). Additional habitats will be directly affected by the project and include impacts on >0.01 acre of chamise chaparral, 1.50 acres of disturbed land, 0.10 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 1.14 acres of mulefat scrub, 0.23 acre of Riversidean sage scrub, and 1.09 acres of Torrey’s scrub oak stands. Chamise chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub are native communities that are common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Mulefat scrub is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by CDFW; however, this habitat is part of jurisdictional resources on-site and is protected as outlined in section 5.7 below. Torrey’s scrub oak is not identified by state or federal agencies as a sensitive species or habitat; however, because this vegetation is mapped unusually due to its monocultural characteristics, it is being treated as scrub oak chaparral for the purposes of this impact analysis.

Eucalyptus woodland and non-native grassland are common naturalized vegetation communities. Additionally, disturbed habitat will be impacted; this land cover type provides minimal biological value. The developed habitat provides minimal-to-no biological value.

Table 11. Beaumont Summit Station Project Site Vegetation Communities/Land Use Impacts Vegetation Community/Land Use Project Site Impacts
(acres)
Upland
Chamise Chaparral >0.01
Developed 48.37
Disturbed 1.50
Eucalyptus Woodland 0.10
Non-native Grassland 103.80
Riversidean Sage Scrub 0.23
Torrey’s Scrub Oak Stands 1.09
Riparian
Mulefat Scrub 1.14
Total 156.231
1 Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Although impacts on native vegetation communities will occur with project implementation, such impacts can be offset through payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees (Section

6.1) that would be used to acquire and maintain high-quality habitat within the MSHCP Reserve.

With payment of such fees, impacts on native vegetation communities would be less than significant.

Formatted Table
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", First line: 0", Right: 0.68"

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 34

5.2 IMPACTS ON MSHCP NARROW ENDEMIC OR FEDERALLY/STATE

LISTED PLANT SPECIES
The proposed project will not impact federally and/or state listed or MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant species as none are present or have moderate to high potential to occur within the project site.

5.3 IMPACTS ON NON-LISTED SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The proposed project will not impact special-status plants as none are present or have a moderate to high potential to occur within the project site.

5.4 IMPACTS ON FEDERALLY/STATE LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES
An individual male Least Bell’s vireo was detected within the mulefat scrub in the western portion of the project site during early protocol-level surveys (i.e., surveys one and two of eight protocol surveys). However, least Bell’s vireo was not detected during the remaining protocol- level surveys (Appendix C). This species still has moderate to high potential to occur within the project due to the presence of suitable habitat. This project would result in the removal of suitable mulefat scrub habitat (2.14 acres) which could result in significant impacts to least Bell’s vireo. Additionally, suitable mulefat scrub and non-native riparian habitat occurs south of to the grading footprint (Figure 5). Project specific measure MM-3 details the strategy to avoid vegetation removal during the bird breeding season. With the implementation of this measure, impacts to least Bell’s vireo would be less than significant.

The proposed project will not impact any other federally and/or state listed wildlife species as no other species are present or have potential to occur on site.

5.5 IMPACTS ON NON-LISTED SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES The non-listed special status wildlife species detected on-site during all biological surveys includes coastal whiptail, California horned lark, cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. The project also has moderate to high potential to support orange- throated whiptail, loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, and yellow-breasted chat. The project would result in habitat loss for each of this species. However, these species are considered adequately covered under the MSHCP and with payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees (Section 6.1) to mitigate impacts on native vegetation, impacts on these species would be considered less than significant.

Southern California legless lizard is a California Species of Special concern that has moderate potential to occur within the project due to the presence of suitable habitat and is not covered under the MSHCP. A majority of the moderately suitable habitat for southern California legless lizard within the project site occurs within the drainage south of the grading footprint, which will be avoided during construction of the proposed project. However, the proposed project would result in removal of some suitable habitat within the smaller drainages in the northeast portion of the site, which would be adverse. Payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees (Section 6.1) provides habitat-based mitigation within the plan area for all wildlife and plant species, including MSHCP-covered species and Species of Special Concern, impacted due to

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 35
the loss of suitable habitat from covered projects. As such, loss of habitat for Species of Special Concern will be offset through this habitat-based mitigation under the MSHCP such that the loss of habitat resulting from the proposed project would not constitute significant impacts.

These species are considered adequately covered under the MSHCP; habitat-based impacts on non-listed special-status wildlife species would be less than significant, conditional upon satisfaction of previous mitigation requirements.

Although not detected during protocol surveys, the project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl which is a California Species of Special Concern (Appendix D). To avoid impacts on burrowing owl, a pre-construction survey will be required pursuant to the MSHCP.

Through compliance with the MSHCP guidelines and MM-1 (Section 6.2), impacts on burrowing owls would be less than significant.

5.6 IMPACTS ON NESTING BIRDS
The proposed project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed or ground disturbing activities are initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). All habitat and land cover within the project site has the potential to support nesting birds. The tree and shrub communities have the potential to support a variety of sensitive and non-sensitive avian species. The non-native grassland and disturbed habitats have the potential to support ground nesting species, such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and California horned lark. Even the developed portions of the project still have the potential to support non-sensitive species such as house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Project-specific measure MM-2 which will avoid project impacts on nesting birds is identified in Section 6.3 of this report. With the implementation of this measure, impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant.

5.7 IMPACTS ON JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES
Based upon the results of the Beaumont Summit Station ARDR (RBC 2022a; Appendix E), the proposed project would permanently impact approximately 0.25 acre (3,072 linear feet) of non- wetland waters of the U.S. jurisdictional by the Corps (Table 12; Figure 5) and 2.17 acres (3,072 linear feet) of vegetated streambed and 0.24 acre of associated riparian habitat jurisdictional by the CDFW (Table 13; Figure 5). Additionally, based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project (Santa Ana RWQCB 2022), the proposed project would permanently impact approximately 2.17 acres (3,072 linear feet) of non-wetland waters of the State and 0.24 acre of associated riparian habitat jurisdictional by the RWQCB (Table 14; Figure 5).

Permitting through the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW would be required for impacts on non- wetland waters of the U.S. jurisdictional by the Corps, non-wetland waters of the State jurisdictional by the RWQCB, and vegetated streambed and associated riparian habitat jurisdictional by the CDFW. The project applicant will be responsible for acquiring the necessary authorizations required by the regulatory agencies and associated compensatory mitigation requirements, if applicable.

Deleted: Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources
Delineation Report …
Deleted: 1
Deleted: /State that are potentially
Deleted: and RWQCB, respectively
Deleted: s
Deleted: and 13
Deleted: ,
Deleted: that are potentially
Deleted: 4

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 36
Table 12. Potential Corps Aquatic Resource Impacts
Aquatic Resource
Name
Project Site Impacts
(acres)
Project Site Impacts
(linear feet)
NWW-1 0.01 71
NWW-1A 0.01 73
NWW-2 0.08 905
NWW-2A <0.01 168
NWW-2B 0.01 175
NWW-2C 0.01 109
NWW-3 0.00 0
NWW-3A 0.01 133
NWW-3B 0.09 1,030
NWW-3B1 0.03 409
Total1 0.25 3,072
1 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Table 13. Potential CDFW Aquatic Resource Impacts
Aquatic Resource
Name Aquatic Resource Type
Project Site
Impacts
(acres)
Project Site
Impacts
(linear feet)1
NWW-1 Vegetated Streambed 0.02 71
NWW-1A Vegetated Streambed 0.03 73
NWW-2 Vegetated Streambed 0.71 905
NWW-2A
Vegetated Streambed <0.01 168
Riparian Habitat2 0.03 –
NWW-2B Vegetated Streambed 0.08 175
NWW-2C Vegetated Streambed 0.07 109
NWW-3 Vegetated Streambed 0.00 0
Riparian Habitat2 0.00 –
NWW-3A
Vegetated Streambed 0.06 133
Riparian Habitat2 0.00 –
NWW-3B
Vegetated Streambed 1.00 1,030
Riparian Habitat2 0.21 –
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 1
Formatted: Right
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.81", First line: 0", Right: 0.86" Deleted: Page Break
¶
Formatted Table
Deleted: 1
Deleted: , 2
Deleted: 82
Deleted: 32
Deleted: 3
Deleted: 50
Deleted: 93
Deleted: 3
Deleted: 3
Deleted: 73
Deleted: 3

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 37
Aquatic Resource
Name Aquatic Resource Type
Project Site
Impacts
(acres)
Project Site
Impacts
(linear feet)1
NWW-3B1 Vegetated Streambed 0.18 409
Total3 2.41 3,072
1 Linear feet not calculated for individual aquatic resource type and vegetation community (including riparian habitat that occurs outside of delineated streambed) to avoid redundant linear foot calculation where such areas overlap. 2 Occurs outside of delineated streambed.
3 Acreages and linear feet summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Table 14. Potential RWQCB Aquatic Resource Impacts
Aquatic Resource
Name
Aquatic Resource
Type1
Project Site Impacts
(acres)
Project Site Impacts
(linear feet)2
NWW-1 Non-Wetland Water 0.02 71
NWW-1A Non-Wetland Water 0.03 73
NWW-2 Non-Wetland Water 0.71 905
NWW-2A
Non-Wetland Water <0.01 168
Riparian Habitat3 0.03 –
NWW-2B Non-Wetland Water 0.08 175
NWW-2C Non-Wetland Water 0.07 109
NWW-3
Non-Wetland Water 0.00 0
Riparian Habitat3 0.00 –
NWW-3A
Non-Wetland Water 0.06 133
Riparian Habitat3 0.00 –
NWW-3B Non-Wetland Water 1.00 1,030
Riparian Habitat3 0.21 –
NWW-3B1 Non-Wetland Water 0.18 409
Total4 2.41 3,072
1 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat). 2 Linear feet not calculated for riparian habitat that occurs outside of non-wetland waters to avoid redundant linear foot calculations where such areas overlap.
3 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, RWQCB jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of channel banks and associated riparian habitat). This riparian habitat occurs outside of the delineated non-wetland water (i.e., the top of channel banks). 4 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

5.8 IMPACTS ON MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, as defined by Section 4.5, occur on the project site. The project’s CDFW-jurisdictional vegetated streambed meets the definition of MSHCP riverine and Formatted Table
Deleted: 1
Deleted: , 2
Deleted: 365
Formatted: Right
Formatted: Superscript
Moved down [2]: 1 Acreages and linear feet summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.¶
Deleted: 2
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Deleted: 3
Moved (insertion) [2]
Deleted: 1
Formatted Table
Formatted: Superscript
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 08
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted Table
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 1
Formatted: Superscript
Deleted: 1
Formatted: Superscript
Deleted: 0.09
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted Table
Deleted: 03
Formatted: Right
Deleted: 0.25
Deleted: 1Acreages and linear feet summed using raw
numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Deleted: ¶
¶

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 38
the CDFW-jurisdictional riparian habitat meets the definition of MSHCP riparian habitat; impacts on CDFW-jurisdictional resources are equal to impacts on MSHCP riparian/riverine. Therefore, the proposed project would permanently impact 2.41 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources. Per the MSHCP, if the proposed project cannot avoid riparian/riverine habitat, a DBESP Analysis would be required to propose mitigation to replace the lost functions and values of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value of the resources. RBC completed the Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report in July 2022 (RBC 2022b).

5.9 IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
The Project site is situated at the northern end of the City of Beaumont and occurs immediately north of a developed residential area. Though undeveloped land occurs to the north of the site, nearby areas to the west and immediately south are highly developed. The site is not identified as a wildlife corridor or criteria area in the MSHCP and does not serve as a regional wildlife corridor. The drainages in the southwest portion of the site likely serve as minor local wildlife corridors and avian ‘stepping stone’ corridors. The largest drainage (Planning Area 3) would not be developed as part of the Project so it would continue to function as a local wildlife corridor.

Significant impacts on wildlife corridors are not anticipated with project implementation.

5.10 IMPACTS ON LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Implementation of the Project would be subject to all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources as outlined in herein. The project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the Beaumont General Plan and the Beaumont Municipal Code. The Beaumont General Plan provides goals and policies for the conservation of biological resources. Goal 8.5 calls for a City that preserves and enhances its natural resources and Policy 8.5.1 calls for the minimization of the loss of sensitive species and critical habitat areas in areas planned for future development.

Pursuant to Unincorporated Riverside County Ordinance No. 499 (as amended though 499.11), “No person, firm, corporation, public district, public agency or political subdivision shall remove or severely trim any tree planted in the right of way of any County highway without first obtaining a permit from the County Transportation Director to do so”. No street trees occur within the project site that would be considered a County highway or County road tree. As such, no impacts on trees protected under Ordinance No. 499.11 are expected with project implementation.

Chapter 12.24 of the Riverside County Code of Ordinances also includes regulations related to tree removal (County of Riverside 2016). According to the Unincorporated Riverside County Ordinance No. 559 (as amended through 559.7), the removal of living native trees on parcels or property greater than 0.5 acre in size, located in the unincorporated Riverside County, and above 5,000 feet amsl requires a permit. The project site elevation is below 5,000 feet amsl; as such, this ordinance is not applicable and no impacts on trees protected under Riverside County Ordinance No. 559 would occur with project implementation.

Commented [SK6]: The DBESP combines these acreages
and states 2.41 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. I remember discussing this with Shanti and we agreed that based on how the MSHCP reads, we should probably not separate between riverine vs. riparian. So I suggest we update this to match the DBESP (i.e, 2.41 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources).

Commented [ET7R6]: Updated
Deleted: 2.17 acres of MSHCP riverine habitat and 0.24 acre of MSHCP riparian habitat.

Deleted: I
Deleted: A project DBESP will be prepared concurrent with aquatic resource permit applications
Commented [SK8]: I think we should update this to state the DBESP was prepared or at least update the timing of
preparation since it needs to occur prior to aquatic resource permit applications/CEQA approval?
Commented [ET9R8]: Melanie- I updated this to match the way we bring up the ARDR & BTR in the DBESP.. is that
sufficient for this paragraph? I didn’t want to dive into when it’ll be finalized, submitted, etc.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 39
The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance; however, an application and approval from the City is required for any removal of front yard/street tree or trees. As described above, no street trees occur on site and no residential structures and associated front yards occur on site. There are occasional trees near the outbuildings at the east of the site; however, these do not appear to meet the definition of street or yard trees. As such, the project would comply with City of Beaumont requirements and no street tree approvals would be required, as no impacts to such resources would occur with project implementation.

Based on compliance with all local policies and ordinances, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

5.11 INDIRECT IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the context of biological resources, indirect impacts are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to native open space. Potential indirect effects associated with development include water quality impacts from site drainage into adjacent open space/downstream aquatic resources; lighting effects; noise effects; invasive plant species from landscaping; and effects from human access into adjacent open space, such as recreational activities (including off-road vehicles and hiking), pets, dumping, etc. Temporary, indirect effects may also occur as a result of construction-related activities.

Volume I, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP (Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines) identifies guidelines that are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating projects (particularly development) in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize potential edge effects, the guidelines are to be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The proposed project is not located in proximity to any MSHCP Conservation Areas. As such, the proposed project will not result in significant indirect effects on biological resources. Furthermore, the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines do not apply to the proposed project.

5.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. ‘Related projects’ refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project. The project site is relatively disturbed and does not support significant stands of native vegetation, with the possible exception of the riparian habitat in the southwestern portion of the site which will remain undeveloped. Further, the project will be fully compliant with the regional MSHCP which protects biological resources regionally such that cumulative impacts within the plan area are avoided. As such, the proposed project will not result in significant cumulative effects.

Deleted:

Deleted:

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 40
6 Mitigation and Avoidance Measures
The following discussion provides project-specific mitigation/avoidance measures for actual or potential impacts on biological resources.

6.1 DEVELOPMENT FEES
Implementation of the proposed project will require payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees. Based on the local development mitigation fee schedule for fiscal year 2022 (effective July 1, 2021 – December 31, 2021), fees would be $11,982/acre for commercial and industrial development and $2,935/acre for low-density residential (RCA 2021c).

6.2 BURROWING OWL
Because the project is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, focused surveys for burrowing owl were performed. Burrowing owls and/or burrowing owl sign were not observed at the project site during protocol-level surveys. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat on site, pre-construction surveys will be required.

Pursuant to MSHCP Objective 6 for burrowing owls, projects are required to conduct pre- construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owls within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area where suitable habitat is present. As such, the following mitigation and avoidance measure (MM) is recommended to avoid direct impacts on burrowing owls. Note that the mitigation language outlined below is based on DEIR input from CDFW and differs slightly from 2012 CDFW take avoidance guidance; we concur that the revised survey timing will adequately avoid take.

MM-1 – A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls between 30 and 60 days prior to site disturbance. Additional pre- construction focused surveys for burrowing owls will be conducted within three days prior to site disturbance including vegetation clearing. If the pre-construction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, or if burrowing owls are detected after the project has started, then construction activities shall be halted immediately. If burrowing owls are documented on site, CDFW will be notified within 48-hours of detection and the take of active nests will be avoided. To avoid take of active nests, a qualified biologist will develop a Burrowing Owl Plan that describes avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrowing sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat avoidable to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Burrowing Owl Plan will be reviewed by CDFW, USFWS, and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority.

6.3 NESTING BIRDS
As noted above, the project site has the potential to support nesting birds in trees or on the ground. To avoid impacts on nesting birds, the following measure is recommended:

Deleted: :

Commented [ET10]: Melanie— FYI I updated MM-1 and
MM-2 to match CDFW’s edits in their letter.

Deleted: within
Deleted: the owls will be relocated/excluded from the site outside of the breeding season following accepted protocols, as specified in the MSHCP.¶

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 41
MM-2 – To ensure compliance with CFGC § 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing and ground disturbing activities shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including but not limited to vegetation clearing, disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement to avoid Take of nesting birds.

6.4 LEAST BELL’S VIREO
The project supports suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo, a state and federally listed as endangered species and an MSHCP covered species. The breeding season for this species extends from about March 15 through August 31, with peak nesting activity occurring in April, although it can continue to the first week of July. An individual male least Bell’s vireo male was observed during 2021 surveys within a drainage in the southwestern portion of the project site; the observation site was immediately south of proposed project development.

To avoid potential project impacts on nesting least Bell’s vireo, the following mitigation and avoidance measures are required:

MM-3 – Project activities shall not be initiated within 100 feet of any least Bell’s vireo suitable habitat area(s) during the species’ breeding season (March 15-August 31) unless a negative USFWS protocol survey has been conducted within one year of construction kickoff and findings were negative.

If groundbreaking activities occur outside the least Bell’s vireo nesting season (i.e., September 16-March 14), a qualified biologist shall perform a presence/absence survey within suitable habitat on-site, and shall continue these surveys on a monthly basis, especially as breeding season commences.

If least Bell’s vireo nesting is discovered, either during protocol surveys, monthly presence/absence surveys, or incidentally, no project activities shall occur within 300 feet of any least Bell’s vireo nest site until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall always be present when construction crews are working within 1/8 mile surrounding an identified least Bell’s vireo nest site to ensure that the birds do not react unfavorably to project activities. If the qualified biologist observes signs of agitation stemming from project activities, the activities shall cease and not resume until the birds’ behavior normalizes. If the birds continue to exhibit signs of agitation, project activities shall be adjusted to avoid impacts on nesting least Bell’s vireo. Additionally, in the presence of least Bell’s vireo nests, noise level from project activities shall not to exceed 65 dBA at the edge of occupied habitat. If this is not possible, a noise barrier shall be constructed to avoid adverse impacts to any least Bell’s vireo nest/s.

Deleted: V
Deleted: should
Deleted: (February 1 through August 31)
Formatted: Font: Helvetica Neue Light

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 42
During the least Bell’s vireo breeding season, artificial light shall not be cast into suitable habitat when night work is occurring.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading in conformance with MSCHP best management practices requirements. The training shall include a description of least Bells vireo and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.

6.5 JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES MITIGATION
As noted above, the proposed project would permanently impact 0.25 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. jurisdictional by the Corps and 2.17 acres of vegetated streambed and 0.24 acre of riparian habitat jurisdictional by the CDFW. Furthermore, based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project (Santa Ana RWQCB 2022), the proposed project would permanently impact 2.17 acres of non-wetland waters of the State and

0.24 acre of associated riparian habitat jurisdictional by the RWQCB. Impacts on Corps-, RWQCB-, and CDFW-jurisdictional aquatic resources would require Section 404 authorization from the Corps, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. Additionally, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulatory agencies to offset the proposed project impacts. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts on Corps-, RWQCB-, and CDFW-jurisdictional waters would be reduced to less than significant. The following mitigation for jurisdictional aquatic resources is required:

MM-4 – Prior to any ground-disturbing activity near jurisdictional aquatic resources, applicable permits shall be obtained through the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW for impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources. The Applicant shall implement/comply with all permit conditions and mitigation measures required by the resource agencies.

Compensatory mitigation to offset impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources may be implemented through on-site or off-site, permittee-responsible mitigation, in-lieu fee (ILF) program or mitigation bank credit purchase, or a combination of these options depending on availability.

The proposed compensatory mitigation strategy is as follows, for a total 3:1 mitigation ratio:

1. Purchase of 4.82 credits (2:1 mitigation ratio) from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program), as available; AND

2. An additional 1:1 mitigation via one of the following measures, dependent on negotiations with the resource agencies during the permit evaluation process:
a. On-site preservation, including enhancement and revegetation within Specific Plan Planning Area 3, with a focus on removal of invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and replanting with native species such as mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) and other appropriate species, OR Deleted: /State
Deleted: and RWQCB, respectively
Deleted: ,
Deleted: and
Deleted: features
Deleted: features
Deleted: Based on the results of the aquatic resources
delineation for the proposed project, the proposed project would permanently impact 0.25 acre of Corps-jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. and RWQCB-jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the State (i.e., NWW-1, NWW-1A,
NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3A, NWW-
3B, and NWW-3B1). Additionally, the proposed project would permanently impact 2.17 acres of CDFW-jurisdictional
vegetated streambed (i.e., NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2,
NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and
NWW-3B1) and 0.24 acre of CDFW-jurisdictional riparian
habitat (i.e., NWW-2A and NWW-3B).

Deleted: be obligated to
Deleted: the
Deleted: regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions Deleted: ¶
A minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (0.25 acre Corps/0.25 acre RWQCB/2.41 acres CDFW) is typically required, though
ratios may be higher. …
Deleted: to
Deleted: (e.g., Riverpark Mitigation Bank), or a combination of these options depending on availability.

Deleted: re-establishment and/or rehabilitation
Deleted: the purchase of 4.82 re-establishment and/or
rehabilitation credits (2:1 mitigation ratio) from the
Riverpark Mitigation Bank.

Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 43
b. Purchase of 2.41 credits (1:1 mitigation ratio) from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program), as available.

The Corps, RWQCB and CDFW will make final determination regarding compensatory mitigation requirements during the permit evaluation process. If mitigation credits are not available at the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program, purchase of credits at an alternative mitigation bank will be pursued in consultation with the regulatory agencies during the aquatic resources permitting process. Additionally, if on-site enhancement is pursued, an enhancement and revegetation plan will be developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies during the aquatic resources permitting process.

6.6 MSHCP MITIGATION
As noted above, MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, as defined by Section 4.5, occur on the project site. The proposed project would permanently impact 2.41 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources. Preparation of a project-specific DBESP is required for conformance with MSHCP riparian/riverine requirements. Additionally, as a condition of the MSHCP, avoided land areas will be conserved as part of the proposed project. As such, the following mitigation and avoidance measures are required:

MM-5 – The proposed project is an MSHCP Covered Activity and subject to the MSHCP implementation procedures. Prior to approval of final grading permits, the City of Beaumont will ensure full implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP for the project, which includes, but is not limited to, sending a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) to CDFW and USFWS for a 60-day review and response period.

MM-6 – Avoided MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, and associated functions and values, will be conserved through the use of a legal instrument such as deed restrictions, a conservation easement, or other appropriate mechanisms. 7 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
The purpose of this section is to provide an analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with biological aspects of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Specifically, this analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements, Section 7.3 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 7.4 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 7.5 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and Section 7.6 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures).

7.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT SITE TO THE MSHCP
The project site is not located within a Cellgroup or Criteria Area. As such, the project is not subject to the HANS or JPR processes. The project site is located within the NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and multi-stemmed dudleya, as well as the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area but is not located within the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas, Mammal, Invertebrate, or Amphibian Survey Areas.

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.25" + Indent at: 1.5"
Deleted: re-establishment and/or rehabilitation
Deleted: The regulatory agencies
Deleted: the
Deleted: of the final
Formatted: 2 Rocks L2
Commented [SK14]: Same comment as previously provided.

I suggest we update this to 2.41 acres of MSHCP
riparian/riverine resources.

Commented [ET15R14]: Updated.

Deleted: In addition, p
Formatted: Rocks MM-# (MM-# is helv medium)

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 44
Within the designated Survey Areas, the MSHCP requires habitat assessments and focused surveys within areas of suitable habitat. For locations with positive survey results, the MSHCP requires that 90 percent of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the identified species be avoided until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the particular species have been met throughout the MSHCP. Findings of equivalency shall be made demonstrating that the 90 percent standard has been met, if applicable. If equivalency findings cannot be demonstrated, then ‘biologically equivalent or superior preservation’ must be provided.

7.2 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO RESERVE ASSEMBLY
The project site is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area. As such, the project site is not targeted for conservation by the MSHCP to meet Reserve Assembly goals. The proposed project is not subject to the HANS or JPR processes.

7.3 PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS

AND ASSOCIATED SPECIES
Riparian/riverine areas are defined by the MSHCP as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year (RCA 2003).”
Based on the formal aquatic resources delineation conducted on June 3 and June 7, 2021, the project site supports approximately 8.48 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas associated with NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 (Section 5.8). Because the CDFW jurisdictional resources within the project site meet the definition of MSHCP riparian/riverine, impacts to CDFW jurisdictional resources are equal to impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine. Therefore, the proposed project would permanently impact 2.41 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources.

Per the MSHCP, if the proposed project cannot avoid riparian/riverine habitat, a DBESP Analysis would be required to propose mitigation to replace the lost functions and values of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value of the resources. If the proposed project will impact MSHCP riparian/riverine resources, a complete DBESP Analysis is required to be consistent with the MSHCP. This analysis was completed in the Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report (RBC 2022b).

Please note that a male least Bell’s vireo was observed during protocol vireo surveys one and two (of eight surveys) in an area of habitat that meets the definition of an MSCHP riverine resource; however, no females or nesting were observed. The riparian habitat within the project site lacks a dense understory and canopy suitable for the MSHCP riparian/riverine wildlife species southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo; there is very low to no potential for the project site to support these species. The project site does not support vernal pools and therefore does not support vernal pool species. No other riparian/riverine or vernal pool associated species are anticipated on-site based on lack of suitable habitat; please refer to Tables 5-7 for detailed species analyses.

Deleted: 7.51
Deleted: features in
Deleted: , and approximately 0.97 acre of MSHCP riparian habitat
Commented [SK16]: Same comment as previously provided.

Suggest updating to: 8.48 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas associated with NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A,
NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-
3B1.

Commented [ET17R16]: Updated.

Deleted: associated with NWW-2A, NWW-3, NWW-3A, and
NWW-3B
Deleted: 17 acres (3,072 linear feet
Deleted: )
Deleted: and 0.24 acre of MSHCP riparian habitat
Commented [SK18]: Same comment as previously provided.

Commented [ET19R18]: Updated.

Deleted: will be prepared concurrent with project regulatory applications…
Commented [SK20]: Same comment as previously provided.

Commented [ET21R20]: Melanie— same as previous
comment. I tweaked language to just note the DBESP. Please modify, as applicable.

Deleted:

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 45

7.4 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANTS
Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area, site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plant Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present.

The project site is located within a NEPSSA, which identifies the target species Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya. The project site does not contain appropriate soils or suitable habitat for these species, and therefore the project will not impact Narrow Endemic Plants; please refer to Table 5 for detailed species analyses.

The proposed project will be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

7.5 GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO THE URBAN/WILDLAND INTERFACE The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect impacts associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The proposed project is not located in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, and therefore the Urban/Wildland Guidelines do not apply to the project.

7.6 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES
Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP requires habitat assessments and focused surveys for projects located within the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl, Mammal, Amphibian, and Invertebrate Survey Areas. The project site is located with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, and NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya, but not the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas, Mammal, Amphibian, or Invertebrate Survey Areas. As described in Section 4, the site does not support suitable habitat for Narrow Endemic Plant Species Marvin’s onion or many-stemmed dudleya, and these species were not detected during 2021 surveys. A focused burrowing owl survey was conducted in 2021 and was negative; however, suitable habitat for this species occurs on the project site. As noted above in Section 6.1 of this report, pre-construction burrowing owl surveys will be required to comply with MSHCP Objective 6 for burrowing owls. With the implementation of this measure, the proposed project will be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. As described in Section 6.5, a project DBESP is also required in order to conform with MSHCP riparian/riverine requirements. This analysis was completed in the Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report (RBC 2022b).

7.7 CONCLUSION OF MSHCP CONSISTENCY
The proposed project will be consistent with the biological requirements of Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), and MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements. The proposed project will be consistent with the goals/objectives of the MSHCP with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and avoidance measures described in Section 6 of this report.

Deleted: will be performed concurrent with project regulatory applications…
Commented [SK22]: Same comment as previously provided.

Commented [ET23R22]: Melanie— same as above.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 46
8 References
Baldwin, Bruce G. et. al. (eds). 2012. The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California, 2nd Edition.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021a. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database – Electronic Format.
__. 2021b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). July 2021. Special Animals List.

Sacramento, California.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Accessed April 2021. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control:

State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. April 6.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Henny, C.J. and L. J. Blus. 1981. Artificial burrows provide new insight into burrowing owl nesting biology. Raptor Research 15:82-85.

Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished document, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, CA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. Last accessed January 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Roberts Jr, F.M., 2004. The vascular plants of western Riverside County, California: an annotated checklist. FM Roberts Publ.

Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC). 2022a. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. July 1.

Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC). 2022b. Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report. July 1.

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2022. Comment Letter on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Project, Tract Map No. 36583, City of Beaumont, SCH No. 2021090378. Received by Christina Taylor, City of Beaumont. May 12.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States __. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28.

Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines, Carlsbad, California. __. 2021a. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species Dataset. Land Use - 2014 - Land IQ [ds2677] - Data.gov. Available at: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fws-critical- habitat-for-threatened-and-endangered-species-dataset. Accessed April 2021. __. 2021b. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consulting, Powered by ECOS – the Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed April 2021. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed January 18, 2021).
__. 2021c. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Last accessed May 2021. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Deleted: 1
Formatted: Not Highlight
Deleted: 2

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 47
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. The National Map, Advanced Viewer. U.S. Department of Interior.

Last accessed May 2021. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/ Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2003. Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation plan. Information obtained from http://www . rctlma. org/mshcp/volume1/index.html
__. 2021a. WRC Information Tool Map. Accessed April 2021. https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3a cd67467abd
__. 2021b. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022. https://www.wrc-rca.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/06/2022-MSHCP-Fee-Schedule.pdf
__. 2005. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP Area. March 29. 4 pp. http://rctlma.org/Portals/1/EPD/consultant/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Technical Note T-N 250. Denver, Colorado. 25pp.

?z
Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Champions Dr
Oak Valley Pkwy Hannon RdUnion StProject Boundary
ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
1 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
Project Site
?z
%&h(
!"`$
Project Location

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2018Regional Map: National Geographic, Esri 2012Page 1154 of 2513

Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave!"`$
Pro ject Bo u n daryVegetation CommunitiesMu lefat Scru bNo n -n ative RiparianBlu e Elderberry (Sambucus nigra s s p. caerulea) Stan dsTo rrey’s Scru b Oak(Quercus x acutidens) Stan dsRivers idean Sage Scru bCham is e ChaparralNo n -n ative Gras s lan dNo n -n ative Vegetatio nEu calyptu s Wo o dlan dDis tu rbed HabitatDevelo ped Special-Status SpeciesCo o per's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL, n es tin g)Ho rn ed Lark (Eremophila alpestris; WL)Leas t Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus;CA an d Federally Lis ted En dan gered Species )MacGillivray’s Warbler(Geothlypis tolmiei; MSHCP)Swain s o n 's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni; ST, n es tin g)Vau x's Swift (Chaetura vauxi; SSC, n es tin g) ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
0 150 300
Feet N
Biological Resources

Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
2Figure

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION

______________
_FFFFFFFFFFF
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFWDP 1
WDP 2
WDP 3
ODP 1
ODP 2
ODP 3
ODP 7
ODP 4
ODP 6
ODP 5
NWW-3
NWW-2A
NWW-3
NWW-3
NWW-1A
NWW-2C
NWW-1
NWW-2B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-3A
NWW-3B
NWW-3
NWW-2

33.96869,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
EF-3
EF-1
EF-2
B-1
B-2
B-3B-4
B-5
D-1
S-5
S-4EF-6
EF-7
EF-8 S-3
S-1
S-2EF-5
EF-4
7 6
3 2 1
46454443
42 41
40 39
38 37
35 34
32 31
30 29 28
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 1312
11 10
98 5
4 36
33 27
18 Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Project BoundaryARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)FPhoto Point OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionCorps Aquatic ResourcesNon-Wetland Waters (0.83 ac) Other Features 1
BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow
1 Features lacking OHWM or three-parameterwetland, and thus anticipated to benon-jurisdictional.

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3A
N
Corps Aquatic Resources

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/27/2022Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet

______________
_FFFFFFFFFFF
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFWDP 1
WDP 2
WDP 3
ODP 1
ODP 2
ODP 3
ODP 7
ODP 4
ODP 6
ODP 5
NWW-3
NWW-2A
NWW-3
NWW-3
NWW-1A
NWW-2C
NWW-1
NWW-2B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-3A
NWW-3B
NWW-3
NWW-2

33.96869,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
EF-3
EF-1
EF-2
B-1
B-2
B-3B-4
B-5
D-1
S-5
S-4EF-6
EF-7
EF-8 S-3
S-1
S-2EF-5
EF-4
7 6
3 2 1
46454443
42 41
40 39
38 37
35 34
32 31
30 29 28
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 1312
11 10
98 5
4 36
33 27
18 Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Project BoundaryARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)FPhoto Point OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionCDFW Vegetated StreambedBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigrassp. caerulea) Stands (0.26 ac)Eucalyptus Woodland (0.07 ac)Mulefat Scrub (1.66 ac)Non-native Grassland (4.75 ac)Non-native Riparian (1.02 ac)Riversidean Sage Scrub (0.11 ac)Torrey's Scrub Oak (Quercus xacutidens) Stands (0.13 ac)CDFW Riparian HabitatsBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigrassp. caerulea) Stands (0.05 ac)Mulefat Scrub (0.27 ac)Non-native Riparian (0.69 ac) Other Features 1
BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow
1 Features lacking a defined lake or streambed,and thus anticipated to be non-jurisdictional.

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3B
N
CDFW Streambedand Riparian Habitats

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/27/2022Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet

______________
_FFFFFFFFFFF
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFWDP 1
WDP 2
WDP 3
ODP 1
ODP 2
ODP 3
ODP 7
ODP 4
ODP 6
ODP 5
NWW-3
NWW-2A
NWW-3
NWW-3
NWW-1A
NWW-2C
NWW-1
NWW-2B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-3A
NWW-3B
NWW-3
NWW-2

33.96869,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
EF-3
EF-1
EF-2
B-1
B-2
B-3B-4
B-5
D-1
S-5
S-4EF-6
EF-7
EF-8 S-3
S-1
S-2EF-5
EF-4
7 6
3 2 1
46454443
42 41
40 39
38 37
35 34
32 31
30 29 28
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 1312
11 10
98 5
4 36
33 27
18 Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Project BoundaryARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)FPhoto Point OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionRWQCB Aquatic Resources 1
Non-Wetland Waters (8.00 ac)Riparian, Blue Elderberry (Sambucusnigra ssp. caerulea) Stands (0.05 ac)Riparian, Mulefat Scrub (0.27 ac)Riparian, Non-nativeRiparian (0.69 ac)Other Features 2 BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow
1 Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCBprovided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project,the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the limitsof the OHWM to include those areas consideredjurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channelbanks and including associated riparian habitat). 2 Features lacking OHWM or three-parameterwetland, and thus anticipated to benon-jurisdictional.

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3C
N
RWQCB Aquatic Resources

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/27/2022Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet

southern rubber boasouthern rubber boa
Southern California legless lizard
purple martin
golden eagle
Crotch bumble bee
Crotch bumble bee
Swainson's hawk
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
orange-throated whiptail
western spadefoot
western yellow bat
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
coast horned lizard
southern grasshopper mouse
lesser long-nosed bat
Southern California legless lizard
Stephens' kangaroo rat
Los Angeles pocket mouse Stephens' kangaroo ratSan Bernardino kangaroo rat least Bell's vireo
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
western yellow bat
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
yellow-breasted chat
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Stephens' kangaroo rat
Stephens' kangaroo rat
pallid bat
white-tailed kite
white-tailed kite
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
coast horned lizard
yellow warbler
tricolored blackbird
Stephens' kangaroo rat
orange-throated whiptail
yellow warbler
yellow warbler
white-tailed kite
California horned lark
coast horned lizard
yellow warbler
yellow warbler
Los Angeles pocket mouse
coast horned lizard
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Cooper's hawk
yellow warbler
yellow warbler
yellow warbler
yellow warbleryellow warbler
coastal whiptail
loggerhead shrike
western spadefoot
Crotch bumble bee
Crotch bumble bee
coast horned lizard
coast horned lizard
coast horned lizard
Southern California legless lizard
Stephens' kangaroo rat
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
San Diego desert woodrat
southwestern willow flycatcher
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Horn's milk-vetch
Jaeger's milk-vetch
spiny-hair blazing star
slender-horned spineflower
Parry's spineflowersalt spring checkerbloom
smooth tarplant
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Santa Ana River woollystar
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Jaeger's milk-vetch
San Bernardino gilia
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Plummer's mariposa-lily
smooth tarplant
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Yucaipa onion
Yucaipa onion
Parry's spineflower
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Yucaipa onion
Plummer's mariposa-lilyPlummer's mariposa-lily
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Plummer's mariposa-lilyPlummer's mariposa-lily
Project Boundary1-mile Buffer3-mile Buffer
CNDDB Plant Species LocationsCNDDB Wildlife Species Locations ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
4A
0 0.5 1
Miles N
CNDDB Plants and Wildlife

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Source: CDFWBase Map: Esri Topographic MapPage 1159 of 2513

Project Boundary1-mile Buffer3-mile Buffer
USFWS Species LocationsCoastal California GnatcatcherLeast Bell's VireoLos Angeles Pocket Mouse San Bernardino Kangaroo RatSouthwestern Willow FlycatcherStephens' Kangaroo Rat ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
4B
0 0.5 1
Miles N
USFWS Plants and Wildlife

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Source: USFWSBase Map: Esri Topographic MapPage 1160 of 2513

Brookside Ave!"`$
Cherry Valley Blvd
Legend
Pro ject Bo un daryPro ject Imp actsAquatic ResourcesCo rp s No n -Wetlan d WatersCDFW Vegetated Streamb ed/RWQCB No n -Wetlan d Waters 1 CDFW/RWQCB Rip arian Hab itats
1 Vegetation CommunitiesMulefat ScrubNo n -n ative Rip arianBlue Elderb erry (Sambucus nigra ssp . caerulea) Stan dsTo rrey's Scrub Oak(Quercus x acutidens) Stan dsRiversidean Sage ScrubChamise Chap arralNo n -n ative Grasslan dNo n -n ative Vegetatio nEucalyp tus Wo o dlan dDisturb ed Hab itatDevelo p ed Special-Status SpeciesCo o p er's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL, n estin g)Ho rn ed Lark (Eremophila alpestris; WL)Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus;CA an d Federally Listed En dan gered Sp ecies)MacGillivray’s Warb ler(Geothlypis tolmiei; MSHCP)Swain so n 's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni; ST, n estin g)Vaux's Swift (Chaetura vauxi; SSC, n estin g) 1 Based o n co mmen ts the San ta An a RWQCBp ro vided o n the Draft EIR fo r the p ro p o sed p ro ject,the RWQCB has asserted jurisdictio n b eyo n d the limitso f the OHWM to in clude tho se areas co n sideredjurisdictio n al b y CDFW (i.e., to the to p o f the chan n elb an ks an d in cludin g asso ciated rip arian hab itat).

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
5 0 150 300
Feet N
Impacts

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021Page 1161 of 2513

Beaumont Summit Station Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Beaumont July 2022
Appendix C2: Aquatic Resources Delineation Report

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

Riverside County, California

July 1, 2022

Prepared for:

Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC
5060 North 40th Street, Suite 108
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(708) 341-9821

Prepared by:

Rocks Biological Consulting
4312 Rialto Street
San Diego, CA 92107
(619) 701-6798

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2 Site Description, Landscape Setting .............................................................................. 1

2.1 Location .................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Topography ............................................................................................................. 1

2.3 Watershed ............................................................................................................... 1 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Pre-Field Review ...................................................................................................... 2

3.2 On-Site Delineation and Mapping ............................................................................ 2

3.2.1 Corps ............................................................................................................. 3

3.2.2 RWQCB ......................................................................................................... 4

3.2.3 CDFW ............................................................................................................. 4 4 Site Alterations, Current and Past Land Use .................................................................. 5

4.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 9 5 Precipitation Data and Analysis .................................................................................... 12

5.1 Precipitation Summary ........................................................................................... 12

5.2 Antecedent Precipitation Tool Data ........................................................................ 12 6 Description of Observed Potential Aquatic Resources ................................................. 13

6.1 Corps Wetland Waters of the U.S. ......................................................................... 13

6.2 Corps Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. ................................................................. 13

6.3 CDFW Streambed and Associated Riparian and Wetland Habitats ........................ 17

6.4 RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State .................................................................... 20

6.5 RWQCB Non-Wetland Waters of the State ............................................................ 20

6.6 Other Features ...................................................................................................... 22 7 Deviation from NWI and NHD ...................................................................................... 26 8 Results and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 26

8.1 Corps .................................................................................................................... 26

8.2 CDFW ................................................................................................................... 28

8.3 RWQCB ................................................................................................................ 29

8.4 Disclaimer Statement ............................................................................................. 31 9 Contact Information ..................................................................................................... 31

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

ii
Tables
Table 1. Field Conditions ........................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Soil Mapped within Review Area .................................................................................. 6 Table 3. Vegetation Communities within Review Area ................................................................ 9 Table 4. Precipitation Data for June 2020 to May 2021 ........................................................... 12 Table 5. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Data for the Review Area ............................................. 13 Table 6. Aquatic Resource Summary: Corps ........................................................................... 27 Table 7. Aquatic Resource Summary: CDFW .......................................................................... 28 Table 8. Aquatic Resource Summary: RWQCB ....................................................................... 30

Figures
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. USGS Topo and NHD
Figure 3. Watershed
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Survey Data and NWI
Figure 5A. Corps Aquatic Resources
Figure 5B. CDFW Streambed and Riparian Habitats
Figure 5C. RWQCB Aquatic Resources
Figure 6. Biological Resources

Appendices
Appendix A. Checklist: Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resource Delineation Reports
Appendix B. Jurisdictional Determination Request Forms Appendix C. Applicable Aquatic Resource Protection Regulations Appendix D. Recent and Historic Aerials Analysis
Appendix E. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms and Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets
Appendix F. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Output
Appendix G. Site Photographs
Appendix H. Literature Citations and References
Appendix I. ORM Bulk Upload Aquatic Resources or Consolidated Excel Spreadsheet Appendix J. GIS Data (provided electronically to agencies)

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

1 1 Introduction
On behalf of Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC, Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) conducted a formal aquatic resources delineation for the Beaumont Summit Station review area, composed of 219.37 acres (Figure 1), to identify areas that may be considered jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. The information provided in this aquatic resources delineation report (ARDR) is necessary to define the presence or absence of aquatic resources within the review area. This ARDR can also be used by the agencies to inform the jurisidictional status of delineated aquatic resources and by the applicant and agencies to assess conformance with state and federal regulations and to estimate potential impacts and associated permitting requirements. Furthermore, the information contained in this report is in compliance with the Corps Los Angeles District’s Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports (Minimum Standards; Corps 2017). Appendix A provides a checklist to ensure compliance with the Minimum Standards.

This ARDR also serves as a request for the Corps to complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) based on the information provided in this report. Appendix B provides the required forms associated with the PJD request.
2 Site Description, Landscape Setting

2.1 Location
The review area is located south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, north of Brookside Avenue, and east/northeast of Interstate (I-) 10, within the City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The review area is bounded by undeveloped land to the north and west, rural residences with livestock pens to the east, and residential development to the south. The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the review area is 33.965141, -117.019732. The review area sits on Township 2 South, Range 1 West, and Section 30 within the El Casco 7.5-minute quadrangle, as mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; Figure 2).

2.2 Topography
The review area is primarily flat with elevations ranging from approximately 2,403 to 2,584 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with areas of lower topography within the drainages on the south and southwestern portions of the review area and between rolling hills along the northwestern boundary of the review area (Figure 2). Drainage patterns on site trend east to west following a gradual decrease in elevation in the same direction.

2.3 Watershed
The review area is within the Santa Ana Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 (18070203), San Timoteo Wash HUC 10 (1807020304), and San Timoteo Canyon-San Timoteo Wash HUC 12 (180702030403) watersheds (Figure 3). In addition to the watersheds defined by the USGS and

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

2 commonly used by the Corps, the RWQCB also defines watershed boundaries by Hydrologic Units (HUs). The majority of the review area is within the Santa Ana Basin, the Santa Ana River HU, and the Beaumont Hydrologic Subarea (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [Santa Ana RWQCB] 1986; Santa Ana RWQCB 2019).
3 Methods

3.1 Pre-Field Review
Prior to the on-site delineation, field maps were created using a Geographic Information System (GIS) and a color aerial photograph at a 1:150 scale. RBC staff also reviewed USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and topography data (Figure 2), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data (Figure 4), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data (Figure 4) to further determine the potential locations of aquatic resources within the review area. RBC also utilized Google Earth to assess current and historic presence or absence of flows and/or ponding in the review area (Google Earth Pro 2021). RBC also reviewed the 2004 Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Sunny-Cal Specific Plan Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California (Sunny-Cal JD Report; Michael Brandman Associates 2004) and the 2006 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Sunny-Cal Specific Plan, Annexation, And Sphere of Influence Amendment, SCH# 2004121092 (Sunny-Cal Specific Plan Draft EIR; Michael Brandman Associates 2006).

3.2 On-Site Delineation and Mapping
RBC regulatory specialists Sarah Krejca and Chelsea Polevy conducted an initial jurisdictional assessment field visit on April 22, 2021 and an aquatic resources delineation field visit on June 3, 2021. RBC regulatory specialist Sarah Krejca and Shanti Santulli conducted an additional aquatic resources delineation field visit on June 7, 2021. Field conditions during these field visits are provided below in Table 1.

Table 1. Field Conditions
Date Survey Time
Start – End
Temperature (oF)
Start – End
Wind Speed Range
(miles per hour)
Start – End
Cloud Cover (%)
Start – End
4/22/2021 0745 – 1315 48 – 61 0 to 5 – 5 to 8 100 – 100 6/03/2021 0730 – 1500 67 – 92 0 to 1 – 10 to 15 0 – 0
6/07/2021 0815 – 1245 52 – 62 2 to 5 – 5 to 10 100 – 90 Figure 1 and Figures 5A to 5C depict the 219.37-acre review area. RBC regulatory specialist Sarah Krejca also completed a Streamflow Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) survey during the June 3 and June 7, 2021 field visits.

Areas with depressions, drainage patterns, and/or wetland vegetation within the review area were evaluated, with focus on the presence of defined channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

3 While in the field, potential aquatic resources were recorded using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with a level of accuracy ranging from 8 to 24 feet. RBC staff refined the data using aerial photographs and topographic maps with one-foot contours to ensure accuracy.

All figures generated for this ARDR follow the Corps’ Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program (Corps 2016).

The below subsections provide the aquatic resources delineation methods used per agency; Appendix C provides additional details regarding the agencies’ applicable regulations and guidance associated with this ARDR.

3.2.1 Corps
Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation
Aquatic resources with a defined ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be considered potential non-wetland waters of the U.S. Corps regulations at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 329.11 define an OHWM as “the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (51 Federal Register [FR] 41251, November 13, 1986). RBC staff used guidance provided in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Field Guide; Corps 2008a) and Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 05-05 to estimate the extent of an OHWM in the field where applicable. For each feature exhibiting the potential presence of an OHWM, RBC completed a 2010 Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet following the guidance provided in the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Datasheet; Corps 2010). Per the 2010 OHWM Datasheet, common indicators of an OHWM include a break in slope (i.e., abrupt cut in bank slope created by hydrogeomorphic processes across the landscape), changes in average sediment texture between floodplain units (i.e., low-flow, active floodplain, low terrace), and changes in vegetation species and/or cover between floodplain units.

Wetland Delineation
Field staff examined potential wetland waters of the U.S. using the routine determination methods set forth in Part IV, Section D, Subsection 2 of the Corps 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0 (Arid West Supplement; Corps 2008b) where potential wetland conditions occur within the review area (e.g., areas with depressions, drainage patterns, and/or wetland vegetation where flooding or ponding could occur to create wetland conditions). Areas that meet the three parameters per the Arid West Supplement (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, following methods set forth in the Wetland Manual and Arid West Supplement) would be considered wetland waters of the U.S. RBC staff base wetland plant indicator status (i.e., Obligate [OBL], occurs 99+% in wetlands; Facultative Wetland [FACW], occurs 67-99% in wetlands; Facultative [FAC], occurs 34- 66% in wetlands; Facultative Upland [FACU], occurs 1-33% in wetlands; Upland [UPL], occurs

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

4 99+% in uplands; and Not Listed [NL], considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes) on the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL; Corps 2018) and hydric soils indicators on Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2 (NRCS 2018a). Soil chromas were identified in the field according to Munsell Soil-Color Charts with Genuine Munsell Color Chips (Munsell Color 2015) and per the Wetland Manual and Arid West Supplement. Plants identified at wetland delineation sampling locations were identified according to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and nomenclature followed Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2019).

3.2.2 RWQCB
Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs do not have regulations or guidance on defining the extent of non-wetland waters of the State. As such, field staff identified the lateral limits of potential non-wetland waters of the State using the same methods for determining an OHWM per the Corps as described in Section 3.2.1 as they have generally been considered coincident.

Wetland Delineation
The State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (the Procedures; SWRCB 2021) defines wetland waters of the State. The Procedures were adopted on April 2, 2019; went into effect on May 28, 2020; and were revised on April 6, 2021. As detailed in the Procedures, the SWRCB and RWQCBs define a wetland as follows: “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation” (SWRCB 2021).

The Procedures provide that RWQCBs shall rely on a wetland delineation from a final ARDR verified by the Corps to determine the extent of wetland waters of the State. If any potential wetland areas have not been delineated in a final ARDR verified by the Corps, the limits of such potential wetland waters of the State shall be identified using the same wetland delineation methods per the Corps as described in Section 3.2.1, except that a lack of vegetation (i.e., less than 5 percent areal coverage of plants during the peak of the growing season) does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland waters of the State (SWRCB 2021).

3.2.3 CDFW
Lake, Streambed, and Associated Riparian and Wetland Habitat Delineation CDFW jurisdiction relies on the presence of a lake and/or streambed and associated riparian or wetland habitat. Lakes include “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 1.56). CDFW regulations define a streambed as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation" (14 CCR § 1.72). The 1987 Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal. App. 3d

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

5 1268) decision further provided that a streambed is the “channel of a water course; the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water.” A streambed includes the “[a]rea extending between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including sand bars which may exist between the foot of said banks….” (188 Cal. App. 3d 1268). The bank is defined as “the slope or elevation of land that bounds the bed of the stream in a permanent or long-standing way, and that confines the stream water up to its highest level” (The People v. Phillip Wright Osborn, 116 Cal. App. 4th 764).

Riparian habitat refers to vegetation and habitat associated with a stream. CDFW-jurisdictional habitat includes all riparian shrub or tree canopy that may extend beyond the banks of a stream.

Isolated riparian habitat (i.e., where riparian vegetation does not appear associated with an ephemeral wash) is not considered CDFW-jurisdictional.

CDFW follows the USFWS wetland definition and classification system, which defines a wetland as transitional land between terrestrial and aquatic systems having one or more of the following attributes: “(1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year” (USFWS 1979).

A wetland is presumed when all three attributes are present; if less than three attributes are present the presumption of a wetland must be supported by “the demonstrable use of wetland areas by wetland associated fish or wildlife resources, related biological activity, and wetland habitat values” (California Fish and Game Commission [CFGC] 1994).

Potential CDFW-jurisdictional wetland boundaries were determined based on the presence of wetland areas supported by a lake or streambed. Wetland delineation methods to determine the presence of one or more wetland attributes included the same methods per the Corps as described in Section 3.2.1.

Based on the above, potential CDFW-jurisdictional aquatic resources delineated included lakes and/or streambeds and their associated riparian and wetland habitats. Field staff delineated the lateral extent of potential CDFW jurisdiction to be “bank to bank” for a streambed or to the “dripline” of riparian habitat and/or wetland boundary, if present. 4 Site Alterations, Current and Past Land Use
RBC staff reviewed Google Earth Pro (Google Earth 2021), the University of California – Santa Barbara (UCSB; UCSB n.d.) database, the 2006 Sunny-Cal Specific Plan Draft EIR (Michael Brandman Associates 2006), and the 2004 Sunny-Cal JD Report (Michael Brandman Associates 2004) to assess historic and ongoing land uses within the review area.

Based on a review of Google Earth Pro and the UCSB database, various potentially jurisdictional features (e.g., Non-Wetland Water [NWW-] 2, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 per Section 6 below) occurred within their current locations in the review area at least as far back as May 1938 (i.e., the earliest aerial image available; Appendix D). Agriculture fields or farming operations are also visible on historic aerials as far back as May 1938 and are primarily concentrated in the northeastern portion of the review area until around June 1980 (UCSB n.d.; Appendix D). By September 1996, farming operations were expanded further into the center of the review area through the construction of several large poultry sheds (UCSB n.d.; Appendix

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

6 D). Based on a review of the 2004 Sunny-Cal JD Report, the review area encompasses the previously active Sunny-Cal Poultry Farm, which contained operations buildings, employee housing, and poultry sheds, and housed other livestock such as pigs and cattle (Michael Brandman Associates 2004). Per historic aerials, runoff from these developments may have resulted in the creation of various ditches, erosional features, and swales (further described in Section 6 below; Appendix D). Remains of these developments, such as shed and building foundations, exist to this day. Furthermore, per the 2004 Sunny-Cal JD Report, the former poultry farm developed various human-made settling basins throughout the review area which were utilized as manure holding areas (e.g., Basin [B-] 1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5, per Section 6 below; Michael Brandman Associates 2004). These basins were established between September 1996 and December 2003 (UCSB n.d.; Appendix D). Normal circumstances were assumed to be present within the review area.

The Sunny-Cal Specific Plan Draft EIR determined four drainages within the review area to be Corps- and CDFW-jurisdictional (Michael Brandman Associates 2006) within the general locations of NWW-2, NWW-2B, NWW-3, NWW-3B, NWW-3B1, and portions of NWW-3A, further discussed in Section 6 below. Furthermore, the associated Sunny Cal Egg Ranch Specific Plan (Tract 36583) Project was previously permitted and mitigated under various regulatory approvals in 2015-2016 (CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit 29 and 43 [File No. SPL-2014-00601-JEM]; CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification [SARWQCB Project No. 332014-20]; and CDFW SAA No. 1600- 2014-0180-R6 [Revision 2]) and included permanent impacts to waters of the U.S./State and streambed/riparian habitat; however, the Sunny Cal Egg Ranch Specific Plan (Tract 36583) Project did not move forward and the previously permitted impacts did not occur. Furthermore, site ownership and project design has changed. As such, this ARDR supercedes previous delineations for review area and will be used to support future permitting associated with the Beaumont Summit Station Project.

The following sections provide additional details regarding site alterations and land use specific to on-site soils, hydrology, and vegetation based on available data and the site visit.

4.1 Soils
Based on the NRCS soils data map (Figure 4), seven soil map units, outlined below in Table 2, occur within the review area:

Table 2. Soil Mapped within Review Area
Soil Map Unit Soil
Series/Unit
Geomorphic
Surface Taxonomic Class NRCS Hydric
Status
Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, eroded Greenfield Alluvial fans,
terraces
Coarse-loamy,
mixed, active, thermic
Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded Greenfield Alluvial fans,
terraces
Coarse-loamy,
mixed, active, thermic
Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes, eroded Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed,
superactive, thermic
Typic Haploxeralfs
No

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

7 Soil Map Unit Soil
Series/Unit
Geomorphic
Surface Taxonomic Class NRCS Hydric
Status
Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, eroded Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed,
superactive, thermic
Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, severely eroded Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed,
superactive, thermic
Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes, severely eroded Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed,
superactive, thermic
Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Terrace escarpments N/A Terraces N/A No
The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils defines hydric soils; Changes in Hydric Soils Database Selection Criteria (77 FR 12234) outlines the current four hydric soil criteria. The NRCS does not list any of the soil map units within the review area as hydric.

The soils outlined above in Table 2 are further described below per the USDA’s NRCS Official Soil Series Description and Series Classification database (NRCS 2018b) and the USDA’s Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California (1971):

Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – The Greenfield series consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse alluvium derived from granitic rock and other mixed rock sources. Greenfield soils have slow to medium runoff, moderately rapid permeability, and slopes ranging from 0 to 30 percent. These soils occur on alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of 100 to 3,500 feet amsl. Greenfield soil is used for production of field, forage, and fruit crops and also for growing grain and pasture. Uncultivated areas consist of annual grasses, forbs, some shrubs, and some oak trees. The NRCS does not list Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded, which occurs on site, as hydric.

Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – The Greenfield series consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse alluvium derived from granitic rock and other mixed rock sources. Greenfield soils have slow to medium runoff, moderately rapid permeability, and slopes ranging from 0 to 30 percent. These soils occur on alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of 100 to 3,500 feet amsl. Greenfield soil is used for production of field, forage, and fruit crops and also for growing grain and pasture. Uncultivated areas consist of annual grasses, forbs, some shrubs, and some oak trees. The NRCS does not list Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded, which occurs on site, as hydric.

Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded – The Ramona series consists of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock and related rock sources. Ramona soils have slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are nearly level to moderately steep and occur on terraces and fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. Ramona soil is used for production of grain, hay, pasture, irrigated citrus, olives, truck crops, and seasonal fruits. Uncultivated areas are primarily annual grasses, forbs, chamise, or chaparral. The NRCS does not list Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded, which occurs on site, as hydric.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

8 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – The Ramona series consists of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock and related rock sources. Ramona soils have slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are nearly level to moderately steep and occur on terraces and fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. Ramona soil is used for production of grain, hay, pasture, irrigated citrus, olives, truck crops, and seasonal fruits. Uncultivated areas are primarily annual grasses, forbs, chamise, or chaparral. The NRCS does not list Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded, which occurs on site, as hydric.

Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded – The Ramona series consists of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock and related rock sources.

Ramona soils have slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are nearly level to moderately steep and occur on terraces and fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl.

Ramona soil is used for production of grain, hay, pasture, irrigated citrus, olives, truck crops, and seasonal fruits. Uncultivated areas are primarily annual grasses, forbs, chamise, or chaparral. The NRCS does not list Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded, which occurs on site, as hydric.

Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded – The Ramona series consists of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock and related rock sources.

Ramona soils have slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are nearly level to moderately steep and occur on terraces and fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl.

Ramona soil is used for production of grain, hay, pasture, irrigated citrus, olives, truck crops, and seasonal fruits. Uncultivated areas are primarily annual grasses, forbs, chamise, or chaparral. The NRCS does not list Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded, which occurs on site, as hydric.

Terrace escarpments – Terrace escarpments consist of variable alluvium on terraces or gullies derived from granite, gabbro, metamorphosed sandstone, sandstone, or mica-schist. Slopes range from 30 to 75 percent. Vegetation is sparse and includes annual grasses, salvia (Salvia sp.), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). Areas of terrace escarpments are used primarily for watershed and as wildlife habitat. The NRCS does not list terrace escarpments, which occurs on site, as hydric.

As stated in the Arid West Supplement, RBC used the hydric soils list as a tool and made final hydric soils determinations based on field-collected data at representative wetland delineation sample points deemed appropriate on site as recorded on the attached Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix E) discussed further in Section 6.1.

4.2 Hydrology
Per the review of on-line data sources, USGS NHD maps one “Stream/River” (ephemeral) in the western portion of the review area, one “Stream/River” (ephemeral) in the southern portion of the review area, and six “Reservoirs” in the central and western portions of the review area (Figure 2; USGS 2020). USFWS NWI maps one feature with a designation of “Riverine” in the southern portion of the review area (Figure 4; USFWS 2019). USFWS NWI classifies the onsite feature as Riverine, R4SBA, indicating that the feature is an intermittent (R4) streambed (SB) that temporarily floods (A). However, based on field observations in April and June 2021, the on-site features are

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

9 expected to convey ephemeral flows (i.e., only in direct response to precipitation).

The primary known hydrologic source for the observed on-site drainages and “reservoirs,” discussed further below, is direct precipitation only. The southern USGS NHD and USFWS NWI feature also receives runoff from development south of the review area that is collected and conveyed on site through a culverted storm drain outlet that flows north under Brookside Avenue.

Previously, on-site drainages also received runoff from the former on-site agricultural operations (poultry and livestock farm) and the on-site “reservoirs” were used as settling basins to hold manure from chicken, pigs, and cows.

Based on field observations, the on-site USGS NHD feature within the western portion of the review area travels west, then continues off site. The USGS NHD and USFWS NWI feature within the southern portion of the review area enters the review area then drains through two culvert outlets under Brookside Avenue, travels northwest, then continues off site. The USGS NHD maps the two features as converging just west of the review area and continuing as an ephemeral stream for approximately 4 miles until transitioning to an intermittent stream for approximately 7.5 miles, then connecting with the San Timoteo Wash. The San Timoteo Wash then continues for approximately 6.6 miles before outletting into the Santa Ana River, which ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean (USGS 2020).

4.3 Vegetation
Table 3 provides vegetation community acreages within the review area based on vegetation mapping conducted by RBC biologists on April 22, 2021 (Figure 6). The review area primarily consists of non-native grassland. The vegetation community classifications generally follow Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) and are consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP; Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2003) vegetation mapping classification.

Table 3. Vegetation Communities within Review Area
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Acre(s)1
Blue Elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) Stands 0.31 Chamise Chaparral 0.19
Developed 61.66
Disturbed Habitat 1.59
Eucalyptus Woodland 0.80
Mulefat Scrub 2.32
Non-native Grassland 146.83
Non-native Riparian 2.37
Non-native Vegetation 0.81
Riversidean Sage Scrub 1.12

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

10 Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Acre(s)1
Torrey’s Scrub Oak (Quercus x acutidens) Stands 1.37
Total 219.37
1 Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Blue Elderberry Stands
Individual stands of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) occur within the review area (0.31 acre). Blue elderberry is a tall woody shrub that can grow up to 25 feet tall. The blue elderberry trees within the review area do not represent a specific vegetation community, rather a monotypic stand of trees that are functionally distinct from the surrounding non-native grassland habitat.

Chamise Chaparral
Chamise chaparral is overwhelmingly dominated by chamise. Chamise chaparral within the review area (0.19 acre) contains some individuals of California buckwheat and occurs along the northwestern review area boundary. Chamise chaparral continues as patches within non-native grassland west of the review area.

Developed
Developed land does not support native vegetation and includes human-made structures.

Developed land within the review area (61.66 acres) includes buildings and paved surfaces associated with the former agricultural operations.

Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat is typically classified as land on which the native vegetation has been significantly altered by agriculture, construction, or other land-clearing activities, and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed phase of a plant association (e.g. disturbed Riversidean sage scrub). Disturbed habitat is typically found in vacant lots, along roadsides, within construction staging areas, and in abandoned fields. The habitat is typically dominated by non-native annual species and perennial broadleaf species. Disturbed habitat within the review area (1.59 acres) occurs within the gravel driveways and staging areas that support the sparse growth of non-native grasses and forbaceous species.

Eucalyptus Woodland
Eucalyptus woodland (Eucalyptus spp.) habitat ranges from single-species thickets with little or no shrubby understory to scattered trees over a well-developed herbaceous and shrubby understory.

In most cases, eucalyptus forms a dense stand with a closed canopy. Eucalyptus species produce a large amount of leaf and bark litter, the chemical and physical characteristics of which limit the ability of other species to grow in the understory, decreasing floristic diversity. A large stand of eucalyptus woodland occurs along the western border of the review area (0.80 acre).

Mulefat Scrub
Mulefat scrub consists of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) as the dominant or co-dominant species

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

11 within a continuous shrub canopy or thicket. A few isolated, individual willows (Salix spp.) also occur within the continuous mulefat scrub. The herbaceous layer is typically sparse. Mulefat scrub within the review area (2.32 acres) is approximately 10-15 feet in height and co-occurs with the blue elderberry stands and non-native riparian vegetation within the canyons and drainages in the southwest.

Non-native Grassland
Non-native grassland within the review area is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) but also contains occurrences of other non-native grass and forbaceous species such as red brome (Bromus rubens), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Rigid fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii) was observed within the non-native grassland habitat growing out of the topographical depressions in the western portion of review area. The review area is frequently mowed and was previously grazed using cattle, keeping non-native grasses and ruderal species fairly low to the ground. Non-native grassland (146.83 acres) occurs throughout much of the review area.

Non-native Riparian
Non-native riparian habitat includes densely vegetated riparian thickets dominated by non-native, invasive species. Non-native riparian habitat within the review area (2.37 acres) consists of monotypic stands of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), occurring within the drainages in the southwestern portion of the review area. Tree of heaven are large trees with some individuals exceeding 30 feet in height. Virtually no understory occurs within the stands of tree of heaven that occur within the review area.

Non-native Vegetation
Non-native vegetation refers to areas where non-native ornamentals and landscaping have been installed. Non-native vegetation within the review area (0.81 acre) occurs just south of Brookside Avenue and is dominated by tree of heaven and pine trees (Pinus sp.) Riversidean Sage Scrub
Riversidean sage scrub (1.12 acres) is a form of coastal sage scrub found in Riverside County consisting of low, soft shrubs. The review area supports small patches of Riversidean sage scrub that are dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat and contain non-native grasses between shrubs. Riversidean sage scrub is found in the southwestern portion of the review area and along the southern review area boundary.

Torrey’s Scrub Oak Stands
Mature individuals of Torrey’s scrub oak (Quercus x acutidens) form distinct stands (1.37 acres) occurring along the upper banks of canyons and drainages within the western portion of the review area. Torrey’s scrub oak is a small oak tree and on-site Torrey’s scrub oak do not exceed 25 feet in height. Non-native grasses occur as the understory between individual trees. The stands of Torrey’s scrub oak within the review area do not represent a specific vegetation community (e.g., scrub oak chaparral), but are a monotypic stand of trees that are functionally distinct from the surrounding non-native grassland habitat.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

12 5 Precipitation Data and Analysis
RBC utilized the NRCS Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS) database for the Beaumont 2.5 NW station (approximately 0.7 mile southeast) to access pre-site visit precipitation data (NRCS 2021), as shown in Table 4.

RBC also utilized the Corps’ Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) to assess whether or not the delineation date occurred in a drier, average, or wetter than normal period for the review area (Corps 2020). The Corps created the APT to assist with determining “typical year” precipitation conditions for a review area (i.e., the normal periodic range of precipitation and other climate variables for the waterbody). Additionally, the APT can also generally inform the regulatory agencies whether or not normal hydrologic/climatic conditions were on site at the time of the site visit and assist with completion of the Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix E).

5.1 Precipitation Summary
Table 4 describes the estimated monthly total precipitation for the review area from June 2020 to May 2021 to provide the pertinent pre-site visit precipitation data from the NRCS database for the Beaumont 2.5 NW, California NWS station (NRCS 2021).

Table 4. Precipitation Data for June 2020 to May 2021
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Monthly Total
Precipitation
(inch[es])

0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 T* 0.70 1.26 2.48 0.15 1.94 0.13 M1 1Per AgACIS database: “Values of 'M' indicate missing data and ‘T’ indicates a trace.”

5.2 Antecedent Precipitation Tool Data
The APT provides three climatological parameters: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), season, and antecedent precipitation condition. The PDSI is a standardized index calculated on a monthly basis with PDSI value outputs ranging from -10 (extremely dry) to +10 (extremely wet) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2020) to assess drought conditions (i.e., PDSI Class). The APT determines wet vs. dry season based on related procedures provided in the applicable regional supplement for the review area (i.e., Arid West Supplement). The antecedent precipitation condition is classified as drier than normal with an antecedent runoff condition (ARC) score less than 10; normal with an ARC score between 10 to 14; or wetter than normal with an ARC score greater than 14 (Corps 2000).

Table 5 summarizes the key data extrapolated from the APT output to compare the current year 30-day rolling total to the averaged 30-year normal for the weather stations with comprehensive historical data within 30 miles of the review area: estimated drought conditions, wet or dry season determination, ARC score, and antecedent precipitation condition. The APT output provided in Appendix F and summarized in Table 5, noted a PDSI Class of “severe drought” on April 22, 2021 and “extreme drought” on June 3, 2021 and June 7, 2021 for the review area; the precipitation and climatic conditions were classified as “drier than normal” on April 22, 2021 and “normal” on

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

13 June 3, 2021 and June 7, 2021 for the review area based on the 30-day rolling totals for the three months preceding the field survey dates. Field staff considered the drought conditions during the field delineation, evaluated how the drought conditions could affect the data collected on the Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms and Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets (Appendix E), and used recent and historic aerials to ensure appropriate representation of the extent of the on-site aquatic features for this ARDR despite 2021 drought conditions.

Table 5. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Data for the Review Area Field Survey
Date PDSI Value PDSI Class Season ARC
Score
Antecedent
Precipitation
Condition
4/22/2021 -3.99 Severe drought Dry season 9 Drier than normal 6/03/2021 -4.98 Extreme drought Dry season 10 Normal conditions 6/07/2021 -4.98 Extreme drought Dry season 11 Normal conditions 6 Description of Observed Potential Aquatic
Resources
The following descriptions of observed potential aquatic resources within the review area document the presence or absence of aquatic resource indicators per the methods discussed in Section 3. The subsections below are intended to be reviewed independently under each agency’s purview unless otherwise directed in the text (i.e., the aquatic resource description is the same between two or more agencies) given the various regulatory definitions and standards per each agency.

Appendix G provides site photographs of the features within the review area; all figures in the Figure 5 series display representative photo points.

6.1 Corps Wetland Waters of the U.S.

RBC collected data at three representative Wetland Data Form Points (WDP) within the review area, one within NWW-2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 in Section 6.2 below), one within NWW-3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3 in Section 6.2 below), and one within B-4 (see Basins 1 – 5 in Section 6.6 below), to determine the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetland waters of the U.S. (Figure 5A; Appendix E). The delineated aquatic features on site did not meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as wetland waters of the U.S. based on the data collected during the field delineation, as discussed further in Section 6.2.

6.2 Corps Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Non-Wetland Water 1
NWW-1 is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the far western portion of the review area (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-1 is an approximately 175-linear foot feature within an area of non-native grassland, the upstream extent of which appeared severely incised and erosional. After approximately 145 linear feet, NWW-1 converges with NWW-1A (see Non-Wetland

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

14 Water 1A below) before continuing off site and downstream, and exhibiting a more defined bed and bank with established vegetation along the banks.

OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP) 3 (see Non-Wetland Water 1A below) represents the OHWM within NWW-1 given the similar conditions observed within NWW-1A; similarily, WDP 2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 below) provides representative wetland delineation data for NWW-1 given the similar conditions observed within NWW 2. The estimated OHWM within NWW-1 measured approximately four feet wide until NWW-1 converged with NWW-1A, at which point the OHWM increased to approximately six feet wide.

Non-Wetland Water 1A
NWW-1A is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs withn the far western portion of the review area and is a tributary of NWW-1 (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-1A is an approximately 156-linear foot feature within an area of non-native grassland that, similar to NWW-1, originates as a severely incised and erosional feature.

An OHWM delineation was conducted within the drainage to confirm the presence or absence of OHWM indicators. ODP 3 confirmed the presence of the following OHWM indicators within NWW- 1A: a faint break in bank slope and change in vegetation cover between the active floodplain and adjacent uplands (Figure 5A; Appendix E, ODP 3). WDP 2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 below) was representative of the conditions in NWW-1A. Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM measured approximately six feet wide throughout the extent of NWW-1A.

Non-Wetland Water 2
NWW-2 is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that travels through the western portion of the review area, south of NWW-1 (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-2 is an approximately 1,018-linear foot feature within an area of non-native grassland that initiates just west of B-4 (see Basin 4 below). After approximately 200 linear feet, NWW-2 converges with NWW-2A (see Non-Wetland Water 2A below), then flows approximately 90 linear feet before converging with NWW-2B (see Non-Wetland Water 2B below) after which NWW-2 continues an additional 70 linear feet before converging with NWW-2C (see Non-Wetland Water 2C below). After converging with NWW-2C, NWW-2 flows approximately 658 linear feet before continuing off site and downstream.

A wetland and OHWM delineation were conducted within NWW-2 to confirm the presence or absence of wetland parameters and/or OHWM indicators. ODP 4 confirmed the presence of the following OHWM indicators within NWW-2: a break in bank slope and change in vegetation cover between the active floodplain and adjacent uplands (Figure 5A; Appendix E, ODP 4). Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM ranged from three feet to four feet wide throughout the extent of NWW-2.

WDP 2 was taken within a vegetated area dominated by blue elderberry (FACU), mulefat (FAC), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon; NL/UPL), and ripgut brome (NL/UPL). WDP 2 did not meet the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology parameters (Figure 5A; Appendix E, WDP 2).

Non-Wetland Water 2A
NWW-2A is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

15 review area and is a tributary to NWW-2 (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-2A displays a faint OHWM and flows for approximately 168 linear feet through a small area dominated by mulefat and non- native grasses before converging with NWW-2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above).

ODP 4 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above) was representative of the OHWM in NWW-2A. WDP 2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above) was representative of the conditions in NWW-2A. Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM ranged from one foot to two feet wide.

Non-Wetland Water 2B
NWW-2B is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area and is a tributary to NWW-2 (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-2B travels for approximately 175 linear feet through an area of non-native grassland before converging with NWW-2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above).

ODP 4 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above) represents the OHWM within NWW-2B given the similar conditions observed within NWW-2; similarily, WDP 2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above) provides representative wetland delineation data for NWW-2B given the similar conditions observed within NWW 2. Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM measured approximately three feet wide.

Non-Wetland Water 2C
NWW-2C is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area and is a tributary to NWW-2 (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-2C flows for approximately 109 linear feet through a small area of non-native grassland before converging with NWW-2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above).

ODP 4 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above) represents the OHWM within NWW-2C given the similar conditions observed within NWW-2; WDP 2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2 above) also provides representative wetland delineation data for NWW-2C. Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM measured approximately three feet wide.

Non-Wetland Water 3
NWW-3 is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that flows through the southern portion of the review area (Figure 5A). Specifically, NWW-3 is an approximately 2,710-linear foot feature that enters the southern boundary of the review area then immediately flows through two culvert outlets under Brookside Avenue. After exiting the culverts, NWW-3 continues northwest for approximately 600 linear feet through an area of non-native grassland, before converging with NWW-3A (see Non-Wetland Water 3A below). NWW-3 then flows northwest for approximately 1,740 linear feet through areas of non-native grassland, mulefat scrub, blue elderberry stands, and non-native riparian, until converging with NWW-3B (see Non-Wetland Water 3B below). After converging with NWW-3B, NWW-3 flows west approximately 370 linear feet before continuing off site and downstream.

A wetland and OHWM delineation were conducted within NWW-3 to confirm the presence or absence of wetland parameters and/or OHWM indicators. ODP 7 confirmed the presence of the following OHWM indicators within NWW-3: a faint break in slope, change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation cover, and change in vegetation species between the active

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

16 floodplain and adjacent uplands (Figure 5A; Appendix E, ODP 7). Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM ranged from four feet to eight feet wide throughout the extent of NWW-3.

WDP 3 was taken within a sparsely vegetated area dominated by mulefat (FAC). WDP 3 met the hydrophytic vegetation parameter; however, WDP 3 did not meet the hydric soil or wetland hydrology parameters (Figure 5A; Appendix E, WDP 3).

Non-Wetland Water 3A
NWW-3A is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the southern portion of the review area, east of NWW-3, and is a tributary to NWW-3 (Figure 5A). NWW-3A likely resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields in the northeast corner of the review area and adjacent fields to the east of the review area, based on a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Furthermore, NWW-3A appeared to have previously convey surface flows/runoff downslope from the former farming operations within the review area, based on its location just south of the former poultry sheds and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Specifically, NWW-3A is an approximately 1,290-linear foot feature that originates at the western extent of Swale (S-) 1 (see Swales 1– 5 below) and eventually converges with NWW-3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3 above).

An OHWM delineation was conducted within the drainage to confirm the presence or absence of OHWM indicators. ODP 5 confirmed the presence of the following OHWM indicators within NWW- 3A: a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture, and change in vegetation cover between the active floodplain and adjacent uplands (Figure 5A; Appendix E, ODP 5). WDP 3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3 above) was representative of the conditions in NWW-3A.

Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM ranged from approximately three feet to six feet wide throughout the extent of NWW-3A.

Non-Wetland Water 3B
NWW-3B is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area, directly west of what remains of the former poultry sheds (Figure 5A). NWW-3B is a tributary to NWW-3 that likely resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields in the northeast corner of the review area, based on a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Furthermore, based on a review of historic aerials and field observations, NWW-3B appeared to previously convey surface flows/runoff from the former farming operations within the review area (Appendix D).

Specifically, NWW-3B is an approximately 1,273-linear foot feature that originates just west of the western extent of Erosional Feature (EF-) 8 (see Erosional Features 1 – 8 below), then travels approximately 393 linear feet before converging with NWW-3B1 (see Non-Wetland Water 3B1 below), then continues another 880 linear feet before converging with NWW-3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3 above).

ODP 5 (see Non-Wetland Water 3A above) provides representative data for the OHWM in NWW- 3B given similar conditiosn wihtin the two features. WDP 3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3 above) provides representative wetland delineation data in NWW-3B. Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM measured approximately four feet wide throughout the extent of NWW-3B.

Non-Wetland Water 3B1
NWW-3B1 is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

17 review area and is a tributary to NWW-3B (Figure 5A). NWW-3B1 likely also resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields in the northeast corner of the review area, based a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Furthermore, based on a review of historic aerials and field observations, NWW-3B1 appeared to previously convey surface flows/runoff from the former farming operations within the review area. Specifically, NWW-3B1 is an approximately 409-linear foot feature that originates at the western extent of S-5 (see Swales 1 – 5 below), then drains south/southwest as it gradually widens before converging with NWW-3B (see Non-Wetland Water 3B above).

Data collected at ODP 5 (see Non-Wetland Water 3A above) represents of the OHWM observed within NWW-3B1. WDP 3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3 above) also provides wetland delineation data in NWW-3B1. Based on the data collected, the estimated OHWM ranged from approximately one foot to four feet wide.

6.3 CDFW Streambed and Associated Riparian and Wetland
Habitats
As outlined in Section 6.1, RBC collected data at three representative WDPs within the review area to determine the presence or absence of potential CDFW-jurisdictional wetlands (Figure 5B; Appendix E). The delineated aquatic features on site did not meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as CDFW-jurisdictional wetlands based on the data collected during the field delineation.

Figure 5B displays the estimated extent of streambed, delineated based on the top of the channel banks, and associated riparian habitat within the review area; Table 7 provides additional details.

Non-Wetland Water 1: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-1 is a heavily vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the far western portion of the review area (Figure 5B). Specifically, NWW-1 is an approximately 175-linear foot feature ranging from approximately nine feet to 21 feet wide from bank to bank, within an area of non- native grassland, the upstream extent of which appeared severly incised and erosional. After approximately 145 linear feet, NWW-1 converges with NWW-1A (see Non-Wetland Water 1A:

Vegetated Streambed below) before continuing off site and downstream, and exhibiting a more defined bed and bank with established vegetation along the banks. The streambed and earthen banks are generally dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL).

Non-Wetland Water 1A: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-1A is a heavily vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs withn the far western portion of the review area and is a tributary of NWW-1 (Figure 5B). Specifically, NWW-1A is an approximately 156-linear foot feature ranging from approximately eight feet to 30 feet wide from bank to bank, within an area of non-native grassland that, similar to NWW-1, originates as a severely incised and erosional feature. The streambed and earthen banks are generally dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL).

Non-Wetland Water 2: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-2 is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that travels through the western portion of the

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

18 review area, south of NWW-1 (Figure 5B). Specifically, NWW-2 is an approximately 1,018-linear foot feature ranging from approximately 15 feet to 60 feet wide from bank to bank, within an area of non-native grassland that initiates just west of B-4 (see Basin 4 below). After approximately 200 linear feet, NWW-2 converges with NWW-2A (see Non-Wetland Water 2A: Vegetated Streambed below), then continues approximately 90 linear feet before converging with NWW-2B (see Non- Wetland Water 2B: Vegetated Streambed below), and travels an additional 70 linear feet before converging with NWW-2C (see Non-Wetland Water 2C: Vegetated Streambed below). After converging with NWW-2C, NWW-2 flows west approximately 658 linear feet before continuing off site and downstream. The streambed and earthen banks are generally dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL).

Non-Wetland Water 2A: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-2A is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area and is a tributary to NWW-2 (Figure 5B). NWW-2A likely resulted from runoff from the former agricultural operations, based on field observations and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Specifically, NWW-2A displays a faint streambed measuring approximately one foot to two feet wide from bank to bank, and flows for approximately 168 linear feet through a small area dominated by mulefat and non-native grasses before converging with NWW-2 (see Non- Wetland Water 2: Vegetated Streambed above). The streambed and earthen banks are generally dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL), as well as mulefat (FAC).

Non-Wetland Water 2A: Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat observed as directly associated with the delineated NWW-2A streambed includes mulefat scrub (Figure 5B).

Non-Wetland Water 2B: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-2B is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area and is a tributary to NWW-2 (Figure 5B). Specifically, NWW-2B ranges from approximately nine feet to 49 feet wide from bank to bank and travels for approximately 175 linear feet through an area of non-native grassland before converging with NWW-2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2: Vegetated Streambed above). The streambed and earthen banks are generally dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL), as well as mulefat (FAC).

Non-Wetland Water 2C: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-2C is a vegetated earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area and is a tributary to NWW-2 (Figure 5B). Specifically, NWW-2C ranges from approximately 20 feet to 47 feet wide from bank to bank and flows northwest for approximately 109 linear feet through a small area of non-native grassland before converging with NWW-2 (see Non-Wetland Water 2: Vegetated Streambed above). The streambed and earthen banks are generally dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL), as well as mulefat (FAC).

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

19 Non-Wetland Water 3: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-3 is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that flows through the southern portion of the review area (Figure 5B). Specifically, NWW-3 is an approximately 2,710-linear foot that ranges from approximately 12 feet to 140 feet wide from bank to bank. NWW-3 enters the southern boundary of the review area then immediately drains through two culvert outlets under Brookside Avenue.

After exiting the culverts, NWW-3 travels northwest for approximately 600 linear feet through an area of non-native grassland, before converging with NWW-3A (see Non-Wetland Water 3A below). NWW-3 then continues northwest for approximately 1,740 linear feet through areas of non- native grassland, mulefat scrub, blue elderberry stands, and non-native riparian, until converging with NWW-3B (see Non-Wetland Water 3B: Vegetated Streambed below). After converging with NWW-3B, NWW-3 flows west approximately 370 linear feet before continuing off site and downstream. The streambed is generally dominated by dominated by non-native grassland plant species such as ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), shortpod mustard (NL/UPL), and horehound (Marrubium vulgare; FACU).

Non-Wetland Water 3: Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat observed as directly associated with the delineated NWW-3 streambed includes mulefat scrub, non-native riparian (dominated by tree of heaven [FACU]), and blue elderberry stands (Figure 5B).

Non-Wetland Water 3A: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-3A is a vegetated, earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the southern portion of the review area, east of NWW-3, and is a tributary to NWW-3 (Figure 5B). NWW-3A likely resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields within the northeast corner of the review area and adjacent fields to the east of the review area, based on a review of historic aerials (Appendix D).

Furthermore, NWW-3A appeared to have previously convey surface flows/runoff downslope from the former farming operations within the review area, based on its location just south of the former poultry sheds and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Specifically, NWW-3A is an approximately 1,290-linear foot feature ranging from approximately six feet to 65 feet wide from bank to bank that originates at the western extent of S-1 (see Swales 1 – 5 below) and eventually flows into NWW-3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3: Vegetated Streambed above). The streambed is generally dominated by ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), shortpod mustard (NL/UPL), and horehound (FACU).

Non-Wetland Water 3A: Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat observed as directly associated with the delineated NWW-3A streambed includes blue elderbery stands (Figure 5B).

Non-Wetland Water 3B: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-3B is a vegetated earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area, directly west of what remains of the former poultry sheds (Figure 5B). NWW-3B is a tributary to NWW-3 that likely resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields in the northeast corner of the review area, based on a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Furthermore, based on a review of historic aerials and field observations, NWW-3B appeared to previously convey surface flows/runoff from the former farming operations within the review area. Specifically, NWW-

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

20 3B is an approximately 1,273-linear foot feature ranging from approximately 20 feet to 70 feet wide from bank to bank that originates just west of the western extent of EF-8 (see Erosional Features 1 – 8 below), then flows west approximately 393 linear feet before converging with NWW-3B1 (see Non-Wetland Water 3B1: Vegetated Streambed below), then travels another 880 linear feet before converging with NWW-3 (see Non-Wetland Water 3: Vegetated Streambed above). The streambed is generally dominated by ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL).

Non-Wetland Water 3B: Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat observed as directly associated with the delineated NWW-3B streambed includes mulefat scrub (Figure 5B).

Non-Wetland Water 3B1: Vegetated Streambed
NWW-3B1 is a vegetated earthen-bottom drainage that occurs within the western portion of the review area and is a tributary to NWW-3B (Figure 5B). NWW-3B1 likely resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields in the northeast corner of the review area, based on a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Furthermore, based on a review of historic aerials and field observations, NWW-3B1 appeared to previously convey surface flows/runoff from the former farming operations within the review area. Specifically, NWW-3B1 is an approximately 409-linear foot feature ranging from approximately five feet to 30 feet wide from bank to bank that originates at the western extent of S-5 (see Swales 1 – 5 below), then continues south/southwest as it gradually widens before converging with NWW-3B (see Non-Wetland Water 3B: Vegetated Streambed above). The streambed is generally dominated by ripgut brome (NL/UPL), false brome (NL/UPL), and shortpod mustard (NL/UPL).

6.4 RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State
As outlined in Section 6.1, RBC collected data at three representative WDPs within the review area to determine the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetland waters of the State (Figure 5C; Appendix E). The delineated aquatic features on site did not meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as wetland waters of the State based on the data collected during the field delineation.

6.5 RWQCB Non-Wetland Waters of the State
Field staff identified the lateral limits of potential non-wetland waters of the State using the same methods for determining an OHWM per the Corps as described in Section 3.2.1. as they have generally been considered coincident; however, based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project (Santa Ana RWQCB 2022), the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the limits of the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat). As such, RWQCB non-wetland boundaries are the same boundaries defined as CDFW- jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat for the review area.

Figure 5C displays the estimated extent of RWQCB non-wetland waters within the review area; Table 8 provides additional details.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

21 Non-Wetland Water 1: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-1 are the same boundaries defined for NWW-1 described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 1: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 1A: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-1A are the same boundaries defined for NWW-1A described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 1A: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 2: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-2 are the same boundaries defined for NWW-2 described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 2: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 2A: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-2A are the same boundaries defined for NWW-2A described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 2A: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 2A: Riparian Habitat
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction over riparian habitat observed as directly associated with NWW-2A as described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 2A: Riparian Habitat).

Non-Wetland Water 2B: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-2B are the same boundaries defined for NWW-2B described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 2B: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 2C: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-2C are the same boundaries defined for NWW-2C described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 2C: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 3: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-3 are the same boundaries defined for NWW-3 described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 3: Riparian Habitat
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction over riparian habitat observed as directly associated with NWW-3 as described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3: Riparian Habitat).

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

22 Non-Wetland Water 3A: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-3A are the same boundaries defined for NWW-3A described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3A: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 3A: Riparian Habitat
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction over riparian habitat observed as directly associated with NWW-3A as described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3A: Riparian Habitat).

Non-Wetland Water 3B: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-3B are the same boundaries defined for NWW-3B described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3B: Vegetated Streambed).

Non-Wetland Water 3B: Riparian Habitat
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction over riparian habitat observed as directly associated with NWW-3B as described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3B: Riparian Habitat).

Non-Wetland Water 3B1: Non-Wetland Water
Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the RWQCB non-wetland boundaries of NWW-3B1 are the same boundaries defined for NWW- 3B1 described in Section 6.3 above (Non-Wetland Water 3B1: Vegetated Streambed).

6.6 Other Features
Field staff further investigated several areas with potential aquatic resource indicators, including basins, swales, erosional features, and an abandoned ditch as described below. Additionally, ODP 1 was taken within a lower topographic area between two gentle slopes (Figures 5A to 5C; Appendix E, ODP 1). This lower topographic area and other similar areas within the review area (See Appendix G, Photos 2, 3, 5, and 6) did not display an OHWM or exhibit bed and bank indicators, and did not appear to convey surface flows. As discussed in Section 4, the review area has been heavily manipulated and disturbed since at least 1938 based on review of historic aerials (Appendix D); many of the features discussed below are expected to be a result of the consistent manipulation of the review area.

Furthermore, the features discussed in this section are not discussed further in this ARDR as they are not anticipated to be jurisdictional under the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW regulations, policy, and/or guidance based on the information provided in this section. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) can be provided under separate cover if required to confirm the features discussed below are not waters of the U.S.

Swales 1 – 5
Five swales (S-1 through S-5; Figures 5A to 5C) were observed during the field delineation that did not display an observable OHWM, bed and bank, or other evidence of conveying regular flows on

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

23 site. These disturbed swale features also did not appear to convey flows to downstream aquatic resources via observed flow patterns, culverts, or other flow paths. A summary of the observed swales are provided below.

S-1 is a slightly concave drainage area located in the southeastern corner of the review area that eventually converges with NWW-3A at its western extent. S-1 did not display an observable OHWM or bed and bank and instead appeared to convey surface flows from EF-4, which historically conveyed runoff from former agricultural fields in the neighboring properties east of the review area (Appendix D). ODP 6, taken in an area of non-native grassland, did not show evidence of a break in slope or a defined bed and bank between the swale and adjacent uplands.

Additionally, ODP 6 did not contain a change in sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other OHWM indicators between the swale and the adjacent upland area (Figures 5A to 5C; Appendix E, ODP 6). Thus, this swale was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

S-2 is a slightly concave drainage area located in the southeastern portion of the review area, north of S-1, that converges with NWW-3A at its western extent. S-2 likely resulted from runoff from former agricultural fields in the northeast corner of the review area, based on a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). Furthermore, S-2 appeared to have previously conveyed surface flows/runoff from the former farming operations within the review area based on its location just south of the former locations of the poultry sheds and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). The conditions and vegetation observed at S-1 were similar to and representative of the conditions and vegetation observed at S-2. Thus, this swale was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

S-3 is a slightly concave drainage area located in the southeastern portion of the review area, west of S-1 and S-2, that converges with NWW-3A at its southern extent. S-3 appeared to have previously conveyed surface flows/runoff downslope from the former farming operations, based on its location just south of the former locations of the poultry sheds and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). The conditions and vegetation observed at S-1 were similar to and representative of the conditions and vegetation observed at S-3. Thus, this swale was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

S-4 is a slightly concave drainage area located in the central portion of the review area, east of NWW-3B, that converges with EF-6 at its western extent. S-4 appeared to have previously conveyed surface flows/runoff from the former farming operations, based on its location just south of the former locations of the poultry sheds and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D). The conditions and vegetation observed at S-1 were similar to and representative of the conditions and vegetation observed at S-4. Thus, this swale was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

S-5 is a concave drainage area located in the central portion of the review area, just west of Ditch (D-) 1 (see Ditch 1 below), that converges with NWW-3B1 at its western extent. S-5 appeared to have previously conveyed surface flows/runoff from an abandoned ditch (D-1) associated with the former agricultural operations. The conditions and vegetation observed at S-1 were similar to and representative of the conditions and vegetation observed at S-5. Thus, this swale was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

24 Basins 1 – 5
Five basins (B-1 through B-5; Figures 5A to 5C) that occur within the western portion of the review area did not display an observable OHWM or bed and bank and instead displayed cracked soils and some concavity within the otherwise flat landscape indicative of a basin. As discussed previously in Section 4, the former poultry farm developed B-1 through B-5 for use as settling basins to hold manure from chicken, pigs, and cows. Four additional areas were investigated as potential basins, based on the appearance of ponding water and/or possible concavity during a review of recent and historic aerials (Appendix D). These areas (see Appendix G, Photos 16, 37, 44, 45, and 46) were determined to not qualify as basins, based on a lack of cracked soils and concavity.

Wetland delineation data was collected within B-4 within a small stand of mulefat (FAC) to confirm the presence or absence of wetland parameters. WDP 1 met the wetland hydrology parameter based on the presence of surface soil cracks; however, WDP 1 did not meet the hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soil parameters (Figures 5A to 5C; Appendix E, WDP 1). WDP 1 was representative of the wetland conditions for B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-5.

Erosional Features 1 – 8
Eight erosional features (EF-1 through EF-8; Figures 5A to 5C) were observed during the field delineation that did not display an observable OHWM or defined bed and bank, and were severely incised. A summary of the observed erosional features are provided below.

EF-1 is an incised erosional feature located in the northwestern corner of the review area. EF-1 abruptly starts and stops within the otherwise flat landscape. EF-1 exhibited a slight break in slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other other OHWM indicators. Thus, this erosional feature was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

EF-2 and EF-3 are deeply incised gullies/erosional features located south of EF-1, in the northwestern portion of the review area. Similar to EF-1, EF-2 and EF-3 also abruptly start and stop within the review area. ODP 2, taken in an area of non-native grassland within EF-2, exhibited a slight break in bank slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other OHWM indicators (Figures 5A to 5C; Appendix E, ODP 2). The conditions and vegetation observed at EF-2 were similar to and representative of the conditions and vegetation observed at EF-3. Thus, these erosional features wer determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank. Additionally, based on the established vegetation within the gullies and the abrupt stop to the features, EF-2 and EF-3 appear to no longer receive flows and do not convey flows downstream.

EF-4 is a gully/erosional feature located in the southeastern corner of the review area. EF-4 appears to initiate just to the east of the review area and appeared to previously convey runoff from former agricultural fields in the neighboring properties east of the review area (Appendix D). EF-4 continues for a short distance before dissipating and becoming swale-like (see Swales 1 – 5 above). EF-4 exhibited a slight break in slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other other OHWM indicators.

Thus, this erosional feature was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank.

Additionally, based on the established vegetation within EF-4 and the quick transition into S-1, EF-

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

25 4 appears to no longer receive flows or receive flows very infrequently, and does not convey flows downstream.

EF-5 is a slightly incised erosional feature located in the southeastern portion of the review area.

EF-5 appears to have conveyed runoff downslope from the previous poultry farm operations, due to its location just south of the former locations of the poultry sheds. EF-5 exhibited a slight break in slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other other OHWM indicators. Thus, this erosional feature was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank. Additionally, based on the established vegetation within EF-5, EF-5 appears to no longer receive flows.

EF-6 is a sharply incised gully/erosional feature located in the central portion of the review area, just west of S-4 (see Swales 1 – 5 above). EF-6 appears to have conveyed runoff from the previous poultry farm operations, due to its location just south of the former locations of the poultry sheds and the presence of a black pipe where EF-6 initiates, that is assumed to have outletted discharge from the former farming operations. EF-6 exhibited a slight break in slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other other OHWM indicators. Thus, this erosional feature was determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank. Additionally, based on the established vegetation within EF-6, EF-6 appears to no longer receive flows and does not convey flows downstream into NWW-3B.

EF-7 is a gully/erosional feature located in the central portion of the review area, just south of EF-6, that connects to EF-8. Similar to EF-6, EF-7 appears to have conveyed runoff from the previous poultry farm operations, due to its location just south of the former locations of the poultry sheds and the presence of a black pipe where EF-7 initiates, that is assumed to have outletted discharge from the former farming operations. It appeared that EF-7 previously discharged into EF-8, which was a slightly less incised erosional feature. EF-7 and EF-8 exhibited a slight break in slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other other OHWM indicators. Thus, these erosional features were determined to not have an OHWM or defined bed and bank. Additionally, based on the established vegetation within EF-7 and EF-8, these erosional features appear to no longer receive flows and do not convey flows downstream into NWW-3B.

Ditch 1
D-1 (Figures 5A to 5C) is an earthen-bottom ditch that is located in the center of the review area, within the former locations of the poultry sheds. D-1, which is located within an area of non-native grassland, appears to have initiated as runoff from underneath a concrete slab associated with the poultry sheds, then continues west before traveling through a culverted pipe and becoming more incised at several points before abruptly terminating (see Appendix G, Photo 40). Based on the established vegetation and a review of historic aerials (Appendix D), D-1 is an abandoned ditch that was created between May 2002 and June 2003 to convey runoff away from the poultry sheds. D-1 displayed a break in bank slope but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other other OHWM indicators. Vegetation within the ditch was well established and contained some refuse from the former agricultural operations, indicating that this ditch likely no longer receives flows and does not convey flows downstream into NWW-3B1.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

26 7 Deviation from NWI and NHD
The delineated extent of NWW-3 generally occurs within the area mapped by the USFWS NWI as “Riverine” and the area mapped by the NRCS NHD as an ephemeral “Stream/River” in the southern portion of the review area. However, although the NWI designates this aquatic resource as intermittent (R4), based on field observations in April and June 2021, NWW-3 is expected to convey ephemeral flows (i.e., only in direct response to precipitation). The delineated extent of NWW-2 generally occurs within the area mapped by the NRCS NHD as an ephemeral “Stream/River” in the western portion of the review area. The delineated extent of B-1, B-2, B-3, B- 4, and B-5 generally occur within five of the areas mapped by the NRCS NHD as “Reservoir”; two additional areas mapped by the NRCS NHD as “Reservoir” were inspected but were determined to not qualify as reservoirs based on a lack of cracked soils and concavity (see Basins 1 – 5 above).

USGS NHD and USFWS NWI do not map any additional aquatic resources within the review area. 8 Results and Conclusions
The results provided in this section include the extent of delineated aquatic resources within the review area based on observed field indicators of potential waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and CDFW streambed and associated wetland and/or riparian habitat per the methodologies discussed in Section 3.

This section, however, does not analyze the Corps’ jurisdictional status of the delineated features per the current regulations, guidance, and standard operating procedures. A jurisdictional analysis for an AJD, along with the applicable JD request forms, will be provided under separate cover to the Corps.

8.1 Corps
NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 displayed clear indicators of an OHWM, such as a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture, and change in vegetation species and cover between the drainage and adjacent uplands (Figure 5A). However, these features did not meet the three wetland parameters.

As such, NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW- 3B, and NWW-3B1 may be considered non-wetland waters of the U.S. given the presence of an OHWM. Approximately 0.83 acre (7,483 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the U.S. associated with NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 occur within the review area, as further detailed in Table 6 and as shown on Figure 5A. The ORM Bulk Upload Aquatic Resources or Consolidated Excel spreadsheet is included as Appendix I.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

27 Table 6. Aquatic Resource Summary: Corps
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width
Range
(Feet)
Observed
OHWM
Indicators1
Observed
Wetland
Parameters2
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation3
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet
NWW-1 R6 4 – 6
CVC, BBS;
see
NWW-1A4
None; see
NWW-25 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.965908,
-117.025153 0.02 175
NWW-1A R6 6 – 6 CVC, BBS None; see
NWW-25 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.966006,
-117.025084 0.02 156
NWW-2 R6 3 – 4 CVC, BBS None Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.964929,
-117.023925 0.09 1,018
NWW-2A R6 1 – 2
CVC, BBS;
see
NWW-24
None; see
NWW-25 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub;
See WDP 3

33.964977,
-117.022656 <0.01 168
NWW-2B R6 3 – 3
CVC, BBS;
see
NWW-24
None; see
NWW-25 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.965185,
-117.022994 0.01 175
NWW-2C R6 3 – 3
CVC, BBS;
see
NWW-24
None; see
NWW-25 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.964845,
-117.023224 0.01 109
NWW-3 R6 4 – 8
CAST,

CVS, CVC,
BBS
HV Yes/No Mulefat Scrub;
See WDP 3

33.962391,
-117.021747 0.39 2,710
NWW-3A R6 3 – 6 CAST,

CVS, BBS
HV; see
NWW-35 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.962760,
-117.018132 0.15 1,290
NWW-3B R6 4 – 4
CAST,
CVS, BBS;
see
NWW-3A4
HV; see
NWW-35 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub;
See WDP 3

33.963540,
-117.022834 0.12 1,273
NWW-
3B1 R6 1 – 4
CAST,
CVS, BBS;
see
NWW-3A4
HV; see
NWW-35 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland; See
WDP 2

33.964055,
-117.021934 0.03 409
Total6 0.83 7,483
1 OHWM Indicators: CAST = Change in average sediment texture; CVS = Change in vegetation species; CVC = Change in vegetation cover; BBS = Break in bank slope
2 Wetland Indicators: HV = Hydrophytic vegetation
3 See Figure 6 for all vegetation communities present within each aquatic resource. 4 Based on a representative ODP taken within an aquatic resource with similar conditions. 5 Based on a representative WDP taken within an aquatic resource with similar conditions. 6 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

28 8.2 CDFW
NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 qualify as CDFW streambed with associated riparian habitat.

Approximately 8.00 acres (7,483 linear feet) of vegetated streambed and 1.01 acres of associated riparian habitat occur within the review area, as further detailed in Table 7 and as shown on Figure 5B.

Table 7. Aquatic Resource Summary: CDFW
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource Type
Vegetation
Community
Width
Range1
(Feet)
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet2
NWW-1 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 9 – 21

33.965912,
-117.025153 0.06
175
Torrey’s Scrub Oak 33.965905,
-117.025193 0.01
NWW-1A Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 8 – 30 33.966014,
-117.025085 0.07 156
NWW-2 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 15 – 60

33.964951,
-117.023674 0.71
1,018
Torrey’s Scrub Oak 33.964834,
-117.024985 0.12
NWW-2A
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 1 – 2

33.965173,
-117.023011 <0.01
168
Mulefat Scrub 33.964970,
-117.022752 <0.01
Riparian Habitat3 Mulefat Scrub N/A 33.964966,
-117.022542 0.03 –
NWW-2B Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 9 – 49 33.964825,
-117.023223 0.08 175
NWW-2C Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 20 – 47 33.962269,
-117.020283 0.07 109
NWW-3
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland
12 – 140

33.962377,
-117.022101 2.37
2,710
Mulefat Scrub 33.962547,
-117.021943 1.05
Eucalyptus
Woodland

33.963045,
-117.023804 0.07
Non-native Riparian 33.961260,
-117.018464 1.02
Blue Elderberry 33.963695,
-117.025272 0.11
Riversidean Sage
Scrub

33.962362,
-117.019172 0.03
Riparian Habitat3
Mulefat Scrub
N/A

33.962322,
-117.022037 0.03
–
Non-native Riparian 33.962170,
-117.020330 0.69

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

29 Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource Type
Vegetation
Community
Width
Range1
(Feet)
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet2
Blue Elderberry 33.961528,
-117.018718 0.04
NWW-3A
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 6 – 65

33.963610,
-117.020925 0.87
1,290
Blue Elderberry 33.962783,
-117.018163 0.14
Riparian Habitat3 Blue Elderberry N/A 33.962425,
-117.019001 0.01 –
NWW-3B
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland
20 – 70

33.963566,
-117.022903 0.36
1,273 Mulefat Scrub 33.963562,
-117.023254 0.61
Riversidean Sage
Scrub

33.963522,
-117.022922 0.07
Riparian Habitat3 Mulefat Scrub N/A 33.963617,
-117.022422 0.21 –
NWW-3B1 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 5 – 30 33.964098,
-117.021923 0.18 409
Total4 9.01 7,483
1 Corresponds with the approximate stream bank widths observed during delineation. Width range accounts for entirety of streambed delineated, not individual vegetation communities. 2 Linear feet not calculated for individual aquatic resource type and vegetation community (including riparian habitat that occurs outside of delineated streambed) to avoid redundant linear foot calculation where such areas overlap. 3 Occurs outside of delineated streambed.
4 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

8.3 RWQCB
NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 displayed clear indicators of an OHWM, such as a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture, and change in vegetation species and cover between the drainage and adjacent uplands (Appendix E). However, based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCB provided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project (Santa Ana RWQCB 2022), the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the limits of the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat). As such, NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1, to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat, may be considered waters of the State (Figure 5C). These features did not meet the three wetland parameters.

Approximately 8.00 acres (7,483 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the State and 1.01 acres of associated riparian habitat occur within the review area, as further detailed in Table 8 and as shown on Figure 5C.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

30 Table 8. Aquatic Resource Summary: RWQCB
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource
Type1
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width
Range
(Feet)2
Observed
Wetland
Parameters3
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation4
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet5
NWW-1
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 9 – 21 None; see
NWW-26 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.965911,
-117.025160 0.07 175
NWW-1A
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 8 – 30 None; see
NWW-26 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.966014,
-117.025085 0.07 156
NWW-2
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 15 – 60 None Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.964934,
-117.023860 0.82 1,018
NWW-2A
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 1 – 2 None; see
NWW-26 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub;
See WDP 3

33.964970,
-117.022603 <0.01 168
Riparian
Habitat7 RP N/A None No/No Mulefat Scrub 33.964966,
-117.022542 0.03 –
NWW-2B
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 9 – 49 None; see
NWW-26 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.965173,
-117.023011 0.08 175
NWW-2C
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 20 – 47 None; see
NWW-26 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.964825,
-117.023223 0.07 109
NWW-3
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 12 –
140 HV Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 3

33.962631,
-117.022409 4.66 2,710
Riparian
Habitat7 RP N/A None No/No Non-native
Riparian

33.962302,
-117.0218138 0.76 –
NWW-3A
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 6 – 65 HV; see
NWW-36 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.962732,
-117.018281 1.01 1,290
Riparian
Habitat7 RP N/A None No/No Blue
Elderberry

33.962362,
-117.019172 0.01 –
NWW-3B
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 20 – 70 HV; see
NWW-36 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub;
See WDP 3

33.963595,
-117.022740 1.04 1,273
Riparian
Habitat7 RP N/A None No/No Mulefat Scrub 33.963610,
-117.020925 0.21 –
NWW-
3B1
Non-
Wetland
Water
R6 5 – 30 HV; see
NWW-36 Yes/No
Non-native
Grassland;
See WDP 2

33.964098,
-117.021923 0.18 409
Total9 9.01 7,483
1 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and including associated riparian habitat). 2 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the widths of RWQCB-jurisdictional non-wetland waters correspond with the approximate CDFW stream bank widths observed during delineation (i.e., to the top of the channel banks). 3 Wetland Indicators: HV = Hydrophytic vegetation
4 See Figure 6 for all vegetation communities present within each aquatic resource. 5 Linear feet not calculated for riparian habitat that occurs outside of non-wetland waters to avoid redundant linear foot calculation where such areas overlap.
6 Based on a representative WDP taken within an aquatic resource with similar conditions.

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

31 7 Based on comments provided by the Santa Ana RWQCB, RWQCB jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to include those areas considered jurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channel banks and associated riparian habitat). This riparian habitat occurs outside of the delineated non-wetland water (i.e., the top of channel banks). 8 Representative coordinates of riparian habitat associated with NWW-3. See Figure 5C for all riparian habitat associated with NWW-3.
9 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

8.4 Disclaimer Statement
The aquatic resources acreages and linear feet estimated in this section represent the existing conditions during the time of the field surveys. Please note that the applicable agencies will make final jurisdictional determinations. RBC recommends early coordination with the resource agencies to determine the final jurisdictional boundaries, applicable permitting processes, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other potential permitting issues specific to the proposed work within the review area. Agency representatives may request to access the site to field-verify the results of this ARDR with the applicant, or a designated representative.

The information provided in this report should remain valid for up to five years from the date of the field effort for the jurisdictional delineation unless site conditions change substantially, or a regulatory agency requires an updated report.
9 Contact Information
Applicant/Land Owner:

Andrew Greybar
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC
5060 North 40th Street, Suite 108
Phoenix, AZ 85018
[email protected]
708-341-9821
Agent:

Shanti Santulli
Rocks Biological Consulting
4312 Rialto Street
San Diego, CA 92107
[email protected]
619-674-8067
Agency access to the review area can be coordinated with the applicant and/or agent upon request.

?z
Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Champions Dr
Oak Valley Pkwy Hannon RdUnion St33.968690,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
ARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)
ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
1 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
?z
%&h(
!"`$ARDRReview Area
Project Location

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 8/23/2021Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2020Regional Map: National Geographic, Esri 2012Page 1199 of 2513

33.968690,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
ARDR Review AreaNational Hydrography Dataset (NHD)Stream/RiverConnectorWashReservoirLake/Pond ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
2 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
USGS Topo and NHD

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 8/23/2021Source: USGS NHD 2020USGS 7.5' Quadrangles (El Casco);T2S, R1W, S29-31, San Jacinto/San Gorgonio Land GrantPage 1200 of 2513

Santa AnaHUC 8 - 18070203
San JacintoHUC 8 - 18070202
San GabrielHUC 8 - 18070106
Whitewater RiverHUC 8 - 18100201
Southern MojaveHUC 8 - 18100100
MojaveHUC 8 - 18090208
Los AngelesHUC 8 - 18070105
Newport BayHUC 8 - 18070204
Seal BeachHUC 8 - 18070201
Aliso-San OnofreHUC 8 - 18070301 Santa MargaritaHUC 8 - 18070302 Antelope-Fremont ValleysHUC 8 - 18090206
ARDR Review Area
Yucaipa CreekHUC 12 - 180702030402
San Timoteo Canyon-San Timoteo WashHUC 12 - 180702030403 Little San Gorgonio CreekHUC 12 - 180702030401
Middle Santa Ana RiverHUC 10 - 1807020308
Temescal WashHUC 10 - 1807020306
Upper Santa Ana RiverHUC 10 - 1807020305
Chino CreekHUC 10 - 1807020307
Lytle CreekHUC 10 - 1807020303
Lower Santa Ana RiverHUC 10 - 1807020310
Santiago CreekHUC 10 - 1807020309
Bear CreekHUC 10 - 1807020301
Headwaters Santa Ana RiverHUC 10 - 1807020302
San Timoteo WashHUC 10 - 1807020304
ARDR Review AreaNHD Watershed 8-digit HUCNHD Watershed 10-digit HUCNHD Watershed 12-digit HUC ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3 BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Watershed
0 3 6
Miles N
Date: 8/23/2021Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2020Source: USGS NHD 2020Page 1201 of 2513

WDP 3
WDP 2
WDP 1
ARDR Review AreaWetland Data Form Point (WDP)National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)RiverineSoilsGorgonio loamy sand, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopesGreenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, erodedGreenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, erodedHanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopesRamona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, erodedRamona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, erodedRamona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely erodedRamona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely erodedRamona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely erodedTerrace escarpments ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
4 0 300 600
Feet N
Date: 8/23/2021Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2020Source: USFWS NWI 2019; USDA NRCS 2018

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
NRCS Soils Survey Dataand NWI

______________
_FFFFFFFFFFF
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFWDP 1
WDP 2
WDP 3
ODP 1
ODP 2
ODP 3
ODP 7
ODP 4
ODP 6
ODP 5
NWW-3
NWW-2A
NWW-3
NWW-3
NWW-1A
NWW-2C
NWW-1
NWW-2B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-3A
NWW-3B
NWW-3
NWW-2

33.96869,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
EF-3
EF-1
EF-2
B-1
B-2
B-3B-4
B-5
D-1
S-5
S-4EF-6
EF-7
EF-8 S-3
S-1
S-2EF-5
EF-4
7 6
3 2 1
46454443
42 41
40 39
38 37
35 34
32 31
30 29 28
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 1312
11 10
98 5
4 36
33 27
18 Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
ARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)FPhoto Point
OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionCorps Aquatic ResourcesNon-Wetland Waters (0.83 ac) Other Features 1
BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow
1 Features lacking OHWM or three-parameterwetland, and thus anticipated to benon-jurisdictional.

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
5A
N
Corps Aquatic Resources

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/27/2022Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet

______________
_FFFFFFFFFFF
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFWDP 1
WDP 2
WDP 3
ODP 1
ODP 2
ODP 3
ODP 7
ODP 4
ODP 6
ODP 5
NWW-3
NWW-2A
NWW-3
NWW-3
NWW-1A
NWW-2C
NWW-1
NWW-2B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-3A
NWW-3B
NWW-3
NWW-2

33.96869,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
EF-3
EF-1
EF-2
B-1
B-2
B-3B-4
B-5
D-1
S-5
S-4EF-6
EF-7
EF-8 S-3
S-1
S-2EF-5
EF-4
7 6
3 2 1
46454443
42 41
40 39
38 37
35 34
32 31
30 29 28
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 1312
11 10
98 5
4 36
33 27
18 Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
ARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)FPhoto Point
OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionCDFW Vegetated StreambedBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigrassp. caerulea) Stands (0.26 ac)Eucalyptus Woodland (0.07 ac)Mulefat Scrub (1.66 ac)Non-native Grassland (4.75 ac)Non-native Riparian (1.02 ac)Riversidean Sage Scrub (0.11 ac)Torrey's Scrub Oak (Quercus xacutidens) Stands (0.13 ac)CDFW Riparian HabitatsBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigrassp. caerulea) Stands (0.05 ac)Mulefat Scrub (0.27 ac)Non-native Riparian (0.69 ac) Other Features 1
BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow
1 Features lacking a defined lake or streambed,and thus anticipated to be non-jurisdictional.

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
5B
N
CDFW Streambedand Riparian Habitats

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/27/2022Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet

______________
_FFFFFFFFFFF
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFWDP 1
WDP 2
WDP 3
ODP 1
ODP 2
ODP 3
ODP 7
ODP 4
ODP 6
ODP 5
NWW-3
NWW-2A
NWW-3
NWW-3
NWW-1A
NWW-2C
NWW-1
NWW-2B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-3A
NWW-3B
NWW-3
NWW-2

33.96869,-117.013579

33.961337,-117.025166
EF-3
EF-1
EF-2
B-1
B-2
B-3B-4
B-5
D-1
S-5
S-4EF-6
EF-7
EF-8 S-3
S-1
S-2EF-5
EF-4
7 6
3 2 1
46454443
42 41
40 39
38 37
35 34
32 31
30 29 28
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 1312
11 10
98 5
4 36
33 27
18 Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
ARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)FPhoto Point
OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionRWQCB Aquatic Resources 1
Non-Wetland Waters (8.00 ac)Riparian, Blue Elderberry (Sambucusnigra ssp. caerulea) Stands (0.05 ac)Riparian, Mulefat Scrub (0.27 ac)Riparian, Non-nativeRiparian (0.69 ac)Other Features 2 BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow
1 Based on comments the Santa Ana RWQCBprovided on the Draft EIR for the proposed project,the RWQCB has asserted jurisdiction beyond the limitsof the OHWM to include those areas consideredjurisdictional by CDFW (i.e., to the top of the channelbanks and including associated riparian habitat). 2 Features lacking OHWM or three-parameterwetland, and thus anticipated to benon-jurisdictional.

ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
5C
N
RWQCB Aquatic Resources

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/27/2022Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet

Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave!"`$
ARDR Review Area (219.37 a c)Vegetation CommunitiesMulefa t ScrubNo n -n a tive Rip a ria nBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp . caerulea) Sta n dsTo rrey's Scrub Oa k(Quercus x acutidens) Sta n dsRiversidea n Sa ge ScrubCh a mise Ch a p a rra lNo n -n a tive Gra ssla n dNo n -n a tive Vegeta tio nEuca lyp tus Wo o dla n dDisturbed Ha bita tDevelo p ed Special-Status SpeciesCo o p er's Ha wk (Accipiter cooperii; WL, n estin g)Ho rn ed La rk (Eremophila alpestris; WL)Lea st Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus;CA a n d Federa lly Listed En da n gered Sp ecies)Ma cGillivra y’s Wa rbler(Geothlypis tolmiei; MSHCP)Swa in so n 's Ha wk (Buteo swainsoni; ST, n estin g)Va ux's Swift (Chaetura vauxi; SSC, n estin g) ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
6 0 150 300
Feet N
Biological Resources

BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021Page 1206 of 2513

APPENDIX A

CHECKLIST: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORTS

APPENDIX A. Checklist: Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports, Los Angeles District Regulatory Division, USACE, March 16, 2017

REPORT SECTION/

PAGE NUMBER MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORTS ADDITIONAL NOTES
Section 1; Appendix
B

1. JD REQUEST AND FORMS: þ A cover letter indicating whether you are requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD)*. þ If you are requesting a JD, you must complete, sign, and return the Request for Corps Jurisdictional Determination (JD) sheet. þ For preliminary jurisdictional determinations the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form must be signed and submitted.

Section 9 2. CONTACT INFORMATION: Contact information for the þ applicant(s), þ property owner(s), and þ agent(s).

N/A

3. SITE ACCESS: If the property owner or their representatives will not accompany the Corps to the site, a signed statement from the property owner(s) allowing Corps personnel to enter the property and to collect samples during normal business hours. If the property lacks direct access by public roads (in other words, access requires passage through private property not owned by the applicant), the owner or proponent must obtain permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to provide access for Corps personnel.

Property owner
and/or
representatives
will accompany
the Corps for a
site visit upon
request.

Section 2.1 4. LOCATION: þ Directions to the survey area, ¨ an address (if available) and þ one or more set of geographic coordinates expressed in decimal degrees.

Section 3.2.1

5. DELINEATION MANUAL CONFIRMATION: þ A statement confirming the delineation has been conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and applicable regional supplement(s). þ The regional supplement(s) used must be identified. þ For OHWM delineations, a statement must be included confirming the use of the OHWM field guide or that it is not applicable.

Section 6

6. AQUATIC RESOURCE(S) DESCRIPTION: þ A narrative describing all aquatic resources on-site and an explanation of the mapped boundaries and any complex transition zones. þ If the site contains resources that only meet one or two of the three wetland criteria or do not exhibit a clear OHWM, describe the rationale for their inclusion or exclusion from the delineation. þ Also explain if any erosional features, upland swales, ditches and other potential aquatic features were considered but not included in the delineation.

Figures 1 and 5A;
Section 6; Table 6

7. AQUATIC RESOURCE MAPPING AND ACREAGE: þ Map of the outside survey boundary, þ total extent of aquatic and proposed non-aquatic features, þ type of feature(s) (waters of the United States or wetland), and include þ the total acreage for each polygon.

Section 3.2; Table 1 8. FIELD WORK DATES: þ Date(s) field work was completed.

Table 6

9. AQUATIC RESOURCE TABLE: A table listing all aquatic resources. The table must include þ the name of each aquatic resource (actual or arbitrary), þ its Cowardin type, þ acreage, þ summary of OHWM/wetland presence, þ dominant vegetation for each, and þ location (latitude/longitude in decimal degrees). þ For linear features, the table must show both acreage and linear feet as well as channel measurements (active channel width).

Section 4; Tables 1,
4, and 5;
Appendices F and G

10. FIELD CONDITIONS: A description of existing field conditions, including þ current land use, þ normal conditions, þ flood/drought conditions, ¨ irrigation practices, þ past or recent manipulation to the site, and ¨ characteristics considered atypical (for criteria see OHWM and wetland supplement guides). þ Include WETS tables or pre-site visit precipitation data as appropriate: https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/wets_doc.html.* N/A for
unchecked; APT
data provided in

lieu of WETS
tables
Section 4.2

11. HYDROLOGY: þ A discussion of the hydrology at the site, including þ all known surface or subsurface sources, þ drainage gradients, þ downstream connections to the nearest traditional navigable waterway or interstate water, and þ any influence from manmade water sources such as irrigation.

N/A 12. REMOTE SENSING: ¨ If remote sensing was used in the delineation, provide an explanation of how it was used and include the name, date and source of the tools and data used and copies of the maps/photographs. N/A Section 4.1; Table 2;
Figure 4; Appendix G

13. SOILS: þ Soil descriptions, þ soil map(s), þ soil photos, and þ a discussion of hydric soils (for wetland delineations only).

Figure 2

14. USGS QUADRANGLE: þ A site location map on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. The map must provide þ the name of the USGS quadrangle, þ Section, þ Township, þ Range, and þ the latitude and longitude in decimal degree format.

Appendix I 15. BULK UPLOAD FORM: þ For sites with 3 or more separate aquatic features a completed copy of the ORM Bulk Upload Aquatic Resources or Consolidated Excel spreadsheet must be submitted.

Figure 5 series 16. FIGURES: þ Map(s) of all delineated aquatic resources in accordance with the Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program.

Figure 5 series and
Appendix G

17. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS: þ Ground photographs showing representative aquatic resource sites (or lack of), þ as well as an accompanying map of photo-points and table of photographic information (see Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program item no. 8 a-c).

Appendix E

18. DATA FORMS: þ Completed data forms including all essential information to make a jurisdictional determination [e.g. 2006 Wetland Determination Data Form -- Arid West Supplement; 2010 Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet].

Section 3

19. METHODS: þ A description of the methods used to survey the aquatic resource boundaries. þ If GPS data is used, the level of accuracy must be included. Ideally, the GPS equipment should have the capability of sub-meter (<=1 meter) level horizontal accuracy.

Appendix J

20. GIS DATA: þ Digital data for the site, aquatic resource boundaries, and data point locations must be provided in a geographic information system (GIS) format, preferably either ESRI shapefiles or Geodatabase format, but GoogleEarth KMZ or KML files may be acceptable non-complex projects. Each GIS data file must be accompanied by a metadata file containing the appropriate geographic coordinate system, projection, datum, and labeling description. If GIS data is unavailable or otherwise cannot be produced and the Corps determines a site visit is necessary, the aquatic resource boundaries should be physically marked with numbered flags or stakes to facilitate verification by the Corps.

APPENDIX B

JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REQUEST FORMS

South of Cherry Valley Blvd., north of Brookside Ave., and east/northeast of I-10 Beaumont Riverside CA
215.96
30 2 S 1 W

33.965141 -117.019732
✔
✔
✔
Andrew Greybar
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC
5060 North 40th Street, Suite 108
Phoenix, AZ 85018
708-341-9821
[email protected]

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR

AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:

Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):

Lat.: Long.:

Universal Transverse Mercator:

Name of nearest waterbody:

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

Office (Desk) Determination. Date:

Field Determination. Date(s):

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION.

Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)

SEE ATTACHED
Andrew Greybar, Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC 5060 North 40th Street, Suite 108 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Los Angeles District
CA Riverside Beaumont

33.965141 -117.019732
11S 498177.05m E 3758291.07m N
San Timoteo Wash

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate. 2)In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre- construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:

Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:

Map: ___________________________________________________.

Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.

Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.

Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: ___________________.

Data sheets prepared by the Corps: _______________________________________________.

Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________________________________________________.

U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ___________________________________________.

USGS NHD data.

USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.

U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _______________________________.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ___________________________.

National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ______________________________________.

State/local wetland inventory map(s): _______________________________________________.

FEMA/FIRM maps: ____________________________________________________________. 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ________________.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ___________________________________________. or Other (Name & Date): ____________________________________________.

Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________________________.

Other information (please specify): _________________________________________________.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.

Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
2022 ARDR, prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting
2022 ARDR, Figure 2; USGS NHD 2020
USGS 7.5-minute El Casco quad
2022 ARDR, Figure 4; USDA NRCS 2018
2022 ARDR, Figure 4; USFWS NWI 2019
See 2022 ARDR, Figures 1& 5A-C (Maxar, Esri 2020, National Geographic, Esri 2012, Nearmap 2021), Appendix D, Recent and Historic Aerials See 2022 ARDR Appendix G, Site Photographs
2022 ARDR, prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION.

Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated
amount of
aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable)
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource “may
be” subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or
Section 10/404)
NWW-1 33.965908 -117.025153 0.02 ac/175 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-1A 33.966006 -117.025084 0.02 ac/156 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-2 33.964929 -117.023925 0.09 ac/1,018 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-2A 33.964977 -117.022656 <0.01 ac/168 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-2B 33.965185 -117.022994 0.01 ac/175 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-2C 33.964845 -117.023224 0.01 ac/109 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-3 33.962391 -117.021747 0.39 ac/2,710 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-3A 33.962760 -117.018132 0.15 ac/1,290 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-3B 33.963540 -117.022834 0.12 ac/1,273 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404 NWW-3B1 33.964055 -117.021934 0.03 ac/409 ln ft Non-wetland waters Section 404

APPENDIX C

APPLICABLE AQUATIC RESOURCE PROTECTION

REGULATIONS

APPENDIX C. Applicable Aquatic Resource Protection Regulations Several regulations have been established by federal, state, and local agencies to protect and conserve aquatic resources. The descriptions below provide a brief overview of agency regulations that may be applicable to the project.

Executive Order 11990
Executive Order 11990 aims to avoid direct or indirect impacts on wetlands from federal or federally approved projects when a practicable alternative is available. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, all practicable measures to minimize harm must be included.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code [USC] § 1251 et seq.; CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which include those waters listed in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3 (51 Federal Register [FR] 41217, November 13, 1986; 53 FR 20764, June 6, 1988) and further defined by the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC; 531 U.S. 159) decision and the 2006 Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715) decision. The Corps, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The Corps would require a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) for more than minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. as determined by the Corps. Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit (NWP).

A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a division of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), provides oversight of the Section 401 certification process in California. The RWQCB is required to provide Water Quality Certification for licenses or permits that authorize an activity that may result in a discharge from a point source into a waters of the U.S. Water Quality Certification authorization “is limited to assuring that a discharge from a Federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements” (40 CFR 121.3).

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the U.S. under Section 402 of the CWA.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could

affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if a Section 404 permit is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream.

Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources (e.g., riparian or wetland areas not supported by a river, lake, or stream). CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to the applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

APPENDIX D

RECENT AND HISTORIC AERIALS ANALYSIS

Appendix D
Recent and Historic Aerials Analysis
Source: Google Earth Pro and University of California – Santa Barbara

May 1938 – Agriculture fields are present on the northeast corner of the review area. The review area appears to be regularly mowed as distinguishable by the contrast in color between areas of higher elevation and lower topographical areas between hill slopes and along drainage features (see northwest corner and southern segment of the review area). Non-Wetland Water (NWW)-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, and NWW-3A are visible on the May 1938 aerial in their current locations. NWW-2, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 are also visible on the aerial in their current locations; however, each feature extends further east/northeast across the review area. NWW-3A, NWW- 3B, and NWW-3B1 appear to receive runoff from the agriculture fields in the northeast corner of the review area.

NWW-3A also appears to receive runoff from the agricultural fields east of the review area. NWW-1, NWW-1A, and NWW-2A are not distinguishable in the May 1938 aerial.

Erosional Feature (EF)-1 and EF-2 are not apparent. EF-3 is evident and appears to receive some runoff from Cherry Valley Boulevard. Some potential inundation or vegetation is visible in the current location of EF-4. The area appears to receive runoff from agricultural fields in the adjacent properties east of the review area. EF-5 through EF-8 are not yet present. Basin (B)-1 through B-5 are not yet present and evidence of potential ponding in their present-day locations is not visible. Swale (S)-1 is evident and more defined on the May 1938 aerial. Some potential inundation or vegetation appears in the current extent of S-2 and S-3. Ditch (D)-1, S-4, and S-5 are not yet present.

NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-3A S-1
S-2 S-3
EF-4
EF-3
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C

Appendix D-2

February 1953 – The agriculture fields were removed from the northeast corner and some structures were constructed along the eastern review area boundary between May 1938 and February 1953. The review area continues to appear to be regularly mowed (see northern segment and northwest corner of the review area).

NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, and NWW-3A are visible on the February 1953 aerial in their current locations.

NWW-2, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 are also visible on the aerial in their current locations; however, each feature extends further east/northeast across the review area. NWW-1, NWW-1A, and NWW-2A are not distinguishable in the February 1953 aerial.

EF-1 and EF-2 are not apparent. EF-3 and EF-4 are evident and visible on the February 1953 aerial. EF-5 through EF-8 are not yet present. B-1 through B-5 are not yet present and evidence of potential ponding in their present- day locations is not visible. S-1 through S-3 are evident and more defined on the February 1953 aerial. D-1, S-4, and S-5 are not yet present.

EF-3
NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C
NWW-3A S-1
S-2 S-3
EF-4

Appendix D-3

February 1976 – Farming operations within the review area began sometime between February 1953 and February 1976 with the construction of various poultry sheds in the northeast portion of the review area. Remains of these developments, such as the shed concrete foundations, exist to this day. NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2C, and NWW-3 are visible on the aerial in their current locations. NWW-2B is evident but less distinguishable in the February 1976 aerial. The review area continues to appear to be regularly mowed and, along with the initiation of farming operations, likely resulted in the significant reduction of the furthermost east/northeast extents of NWW-2, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 between February 1953 and 1976. NWW-2A is not distinguishable in the February 1976 aerial.

EF-1 and EF-2 are not apparent. EF-3 is no longer evident in the February 1976 aerial and was likely mowed between February 1953 and 1976. EF-4 is evident while EF-5 through EF-8 are still not yet present. B-1 through B-5 are not yet present and evidence of potential ponding in their present-day locations is not visible. S-1 is evident in the February 1976 aerial; however, S-1 is becoming less distinguishable. S-2 is no longer present as the new farming operations extend into S-2’s previous location. Some evidence of S-3 is visible; however, the feature is less defined. D-1, S-4, and S-5 are not yet present.

NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C
NWW-3A
NWW-1 & -1A
S-1
S-3
EF-4

Appendix D-4

September 1996 – Farming operations within the review area continue to expand between February 1976 and September 1996 with the development of more poultry sheds in the center of the review area. Additionally, various ponding basins (i.e., B-1 and B-2) were developed within the review area during this time. Remains of these developments and site modifications exist to this day. B-1 and B-2 appear to drain runoff into NWW-2 and NWW- 2B. Furthermore, an unnamed basin in the center of the review area drains into NWW-3B. The drainage between the unnamed basin and NWW-3B accounts for a portion of present-day NWW-3B and EF-8. NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-3, and NWW-3A are visible on the aerial in their current locations and extents. NWW-2C is evident but less distinguishable in the September 1996 aerial. The review area still appears to be regularly mowed. The expanding farming operations contribute to further reduction of NWW-3B and NWW-3B1. NWW-2A is not distinguishable in the September 1996 aerial.

EF-1 through EF-3 are not apparent. EF-4 is still defined and visible. EF-5 is now visible and appears to receive runoff from the newly constructed poultry sheds. B-3 through B-5 are not visible/present in September 1996. S-1 is evident in the September 1996 aerial but appears to be losing further definition. Some evidence of S-3 is visible; however, the feature is less distinguishable. D-1, S-4, and S-5 are not visible.

B-1 & B-2
EF-4
S-1
EF-5
NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C
NWW-3A
NWW-1 & -1A
S-3
EF-8

Appendix D-5

October 2003 – Farming operations within the review area continue to expand between September 1996 and October 2003 with the construction of more poultry sheds in the center of the review area. Additionally, more ponding basins (i.e., B-3 through B-5 and various other unnamed basins) were developed during this time.

Remains of these developments and site modifications exist to this day. B-1 and B-2 are still present; however, no longer appear to drain runoff into NWW-2 and NWW-2B. Furthermore, NWW-3B no longer appears to receive flows from the unnamed basin in the center of the review area. NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, and NWW-3A are visible on the aerial in their current locations. The expanding farming operations continue to contribute to further reductions of NWW-3B and NWW-3B1. By October 2003, NWW-3B and NWW- 3B1 were reduced to their current extents. NWW-2A is primarily only visible near its convergence with NWW-2.

EF-1 through EF-3 are visible and appear to receive runoff from a new irrigation system within the review area. EF- 4 is evident, and EF-5 still appears to receive runoff from the poultry sheds. S-1 is further indistinguishable and appears to likely contain the same characteristics as those observed present-day (i.e., no break in slope or a defined bed and bank between the swale and adjacent uplands). S-2 has reemerged and appears to receive runoff from farming operation buildings. The expansion of the poultry sheds appears to result in S-4 and EF-6 becoming slightly apparent and S-5, EF-7, and EF-8 being visible in their current locations and extents. S-3 and D-1 are not yet apparent.

B-1 – B-5
EF-4
S-2 EF-5
NWW-1 & -1A
EF-1
EF-2
EF-3
S-5
S-4
EF-7 & -8
EF-6
NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C
NWW-3A
NWW-2A

Appendix D-6

January 2006 – Various poultry sheds throughout the review area were demolished sometime between October 2003 and January 2006. The remaining shed concrete foundations visible in the January 2006 aerial exist to this day. NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 are visible in their current locations and extents. NWW-2A is primarily only visible near its convergence with NWW-2.

B-1 through B5 and EF-1 through EF-4 are visible in their current locations. EF-5 and S-2 continue to receive runoff downslope from the farming operations. S-1 is still only defined by the slight concave topography and lacks any other distinguishable features. S-3 has reemerged and is slightly visible in the January 2006 aerial. Active farming activities between October 2003 and January 2006 likely resulted in further defining S-4, S-5, and EF-6 through EF-8. D-1 is now fully evident in the January 2006 aerial. The northernmost poultry sheds appear to create downslope runoff which defined and created D-1 between October 2003 and January 2006.

B-1 – B-5
EF-4
S-1
S-2 EF-5
NWW-3A
S-5
D-1
S-3
S-4
EF-7 & -8
EF-6
NWW-1 & -1A
EF-1
EF-2
EF-3
NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C NWW-2A

Appendix D-7

March 2011 – Based on GoogleEarth aerials, the last remaining poultry sheds throughout the review area were removed between January 2006 and August 2006. By March 2011, NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 are visible in their current locations and extents. NWW- 2A is primarily only visible near its convergence with NWW-2.

B-1 through B5 and EF-1 through EF-4 are visible in their current locations. EF-5 and S-2 are less distinguishable in the May 2011 aerial, likely a result from the total removal of farming operations within the review area. S-1 is still only apparent by the slight concave topography and lacks any other distinguishable features. The end of farming operations also likely contributed to the significant reduction of S-3 between January 2006 and March 2011. S-3 is only slightly evident near its convergence with NWW-3A. EF-6 through EF-8 and S-4 are also less distinguishable in the March 2011 aerial. S-5 and D-1 are still evident in the March 2011 aerial.

B-1 – B-5
EF-4
S-1
NWW-3A
S-5
D-1
S-3
S-4
EF-7 & -8
EF-6
NWW-1 & -1A
EF-1
EF-2
EF-3
NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-3B1
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C NWW-2A
S-2 EF-5

Appendix D-8

February 2018 – Based on GoogleEarth aerials, the last remaining farming operation buildings located in the northeastern corner were removed between October 2016 and February 2018. By February 2018, NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 are visible in their current locations and extents. NWW-2A is primarily only visible near its convergence with NWW-2.

B-1 through B5 and EF-1 through EF-4 are visible in their current locations. EF-5 and S-2 are less distinguishable in the February 2018 aerial. S-1 is still only defined by the slight concave topography and lacks any other distinguishable features. S-3 is still only slightly evident near its convergence with NWW-3A. EF-6 through EF-8 and S-4 are also less distinguishable. S-5 and D-1 are still evident in the March 2011 aerial.

EF-1
EF-2
EF-3
NWW-1 & -1A
B-1 – B-5
EF-4
S-1
S-2 EF-5
NWW-3B1
NWW-3A
S-5
D-1
S-3
S-4
EF-7 & -8
EF-6
NWW-3
NWW-3B
NWW-2
NWW-2B
NWW-2C NWW-2A

APPENDIX E

ARID WEST WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS AND

EPHEMERAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS OHWM

DATASHEETS

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Beaumont Summit Station Beaumont 06/07/2021
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC CA WDP 1
Shanti Santulli, Sarah Krejca, Ian Hirschler T2S, R1W, S30 In basin (constructed)Concave 0-1%
LRR C - Mediterranean California 33.965328 -117.022071 WGS 84 Terrace escarpments None
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
10-foot radius
Baccharis salicifolia 25%Yes FAC
25%
5-foot radius
Hirschfeldia incana 15%Yes NL/UPL
Polygonum aviculare 3%No FAC
Croton setiger 2%No NL/UPL
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sample point taken within constructed earthen basin, near three individual mulefat. Drought conditions per APT (i.e., atypical hydrologic conditions/naturally problematic); however, wetland hydrology parameter still met based on presence of surface soil cracks. 80%0%
1 2
50%
0 0
0 0
28 84
0 0
17 85
45 169

3.76 4
Sample point taken near three individual mulefat within area mapped as non-native grassland.