US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WDP 1
0-7 7.5 YR 4/3 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A Clay loam No evidence of redox observed.
Shovel refusal - compact soils
7 inches
Soil moistened with spray bottle to record soil color. Uniform soil throughout. No hydric soil indicators observed.
4 4
4 4
4 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Abandoned farm/stock pond that may still collect water during rains but no other wetland hydrology indicators observed beyond soil surface cracks. Did not meet FAC-Neutral Test.
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 2
Sarah Krejca, Shanti Santulli T2S, R1W, S30
In channel Slightly concave 1-3%
LRR C - Mediterranean California 32.964923 -117.023427 WGS 84 Terrace escarpments None
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 10-foot radius
Sambucus nigra 5%Yes FACU
5%
10-foot radius
Baccharis salicifolia 25%Yes FAC
25%
5-foot radius
Brachypodium distachyon 35%Yes NL/UPL
Bromus diandrus 25%Yes NL/UPL
Hirschfeldia incana 15%No NL/UPL
Marrubium vulgare 5%No FACU
80%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sample point taken within earthen channel. Drought conditions per APT (i.e., atypical hydrologic conditions/naturally problematic); no hydrology indicators observed. However, sampling point within ephemeral channel not anticipated to function as wetland - hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils also not observed. 20%0%
1 4
25%
0 0
0 0
25 75
10 40
75 375
110 490
4.45 4
Sample point taken within area mapped as non-native grassland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WDP 2
0-11 10 YR 3/3 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A Loam No evidence of redox observed.
Shovel refusal - compact soils
11 inches
Soil moistened with spray bottle to record soil color. Uniform soil throughout. No hydric soil indicators observed.
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Did not meet FAC-Neutral Test. No wetland hydrology indicators observed.
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 3
Sarah Krejca, Shanti Santulli, Ian Hirschler T2S, R1W, S30 In channel Slightly concave 1-2%
LRR C - Mediterranean California 33.962825 -117.022836 WGS 84 Terrace escarpments Riverine
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
5-foot radius
Baccharis salicifolia 10%Yes FAC
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sample point taken within earthen channel. Drought conditions per APT (i.e., atypical hydrologic conditions/naturally problematic); hydrophytic vegetation parameter still met at sampling point, but no hydric soils or wetland hydrology. Sampling point within ephemeral stream not anticipated to function as wetland despite presence of mulefat (FAC).
97%0%
1 1
100%
4 4
Sample point taken within area mapped as mulefat scrub. Less than 5% herbaceous cover (approximately 3%), therefore, per AW manual, no herb stratum. 5-foot radius plot size used for sapling/shrub stratum to only account for vegetation within area with same soil and hydrologic conditions (i.e., within the channel).
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WDP 3
0-16 10 YR 4/3 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A Sand No evidence of redox observed.
Shovel refusal - compact soils
16 inches
Soil moistened with spray bottle to record soil color. Uniform soil throughout. No hydric soil indicators observed.
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Did not meet FAC-Neutral Test. No wetland hydrology indicators observed.
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2.Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 0815
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 1 2 2
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.968238, -117.025022
Surrounding area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm. Lower topographic area between two gentle slopes, just south of developed road (Cherry Valley Boulevard).
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 1 06/03/2021 0815
Lower topographic area did not exhibit bed and bank indicators; no change in sediment texture or break in slope; vegetation did not differ from lower topographic area to adjacent slopes (dominated by non-native grassland and scrub oak). Data was collected during a drought year; however, historic aerials and previous delineation note consistent conditions.
N/A
Lower topographic area
Gentle slope
Facing west
33.968238, -117.025022
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 1 06/03/2021 0815
N/A
N/A
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 0830
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 2 4 4
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.967162, -117.025097
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; gully/erosional feature adjacent to western site boundary. Highly incised area.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 2 06/03/2021 0830
✔
Gully/erosional feature that 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. Gully and surrounding upland were both heavily vegetated with non-native grasses.
N/A
Facing downstream
(southwest)
gully/incised area
33.967162, -117.025097
Upland Upland
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 2 06/03/2021 0830
N/A
N/A
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 0915
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 3 8 9
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.966030, -117.024921
Surrounding area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; north and south leg of feature within lower topographic area adjacent to western site boundary.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 3 06/03/2021 0915
✔
✔
Approximately 6-foot wide OHWM defined by a faint break in slope and change in vegetation cover. Data was taken during a drought year. No distinguishable difference in sediment texture from active floodplain (AF) to upland. More defined bed and bank occurs downstream, but off site.
✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 6' LF/AF/OHWM
Northern leg of
feature; facing
downstream (west)
25' Top of bank
UplandUpland
33.966030, -117.024921
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 3 06/03/2021 0915
✔
Same as OHWM
Medium silt
80 0 0 80
✔
✔
AF defined by faint break in bank slope; AF heavily vegetated with non-native grasses. ✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Medium silt
50 0 0 50
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by surface relief. Uplands partially vegetated with non-native grasses.
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/07/2021 0900
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 4 18 19
Shanti Santulli, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.964891, -117.023514
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; north and south leg of drainage within lower topographic area adjacent to western site boundary.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 4 06/07/2021 0900
✔
✔
Approximately 4-foot wide OHWM defined by a break in slope and a change in vegetation cover. Data was taken during a drought year; however, indicators still observed and consistent with anticipated extent of OHWM based on review of aerials and site conditions/topography. No distinguishable difference in sediment texture from active floodplain (AF) to upland. ✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 4' LF/AF/OHWM
Facing downstream (west)25' Top of bank
UplandUpland
33.964891, -117.023514
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 4 06/07/2021 0900
✔
Same as OHWM
Coarse silt
30 0 0 30
✔
✔
AF defined by faint break in bank slope; AF sparsely vegetated, becoming less vegetated downstream. Vegetation dominated by non-native grasses, including short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon).
✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Coarse silt
65 0 0 65
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by surface relief. Uplands dominated by non-native grasses, including short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon).
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 1200
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 5 27 28
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.963128, -117.017059
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; drainage feature adjacent to/south of developed concrete slabs near southeast site boundary.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 5 06/03/2021 1200
✔
✔
✔
Approximately 6-foot wide OHWM defined by a break in slope, change in sediment texture, and change in vegetation species. Data was taken during a drought year; however, indicators still observed and consistent with anticipated extent of OHWM based on review of aerials and site conditions/topography. ✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 6' LF/AF/OHWM
Facing upstream
(northeast)
30' Top of bank Upland
33.963128, -117.017059
Upland
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 5 06/03/2021 1200
✔
Same as OHWM
Medium silt with cobbles
80 0 15 65
✔
✔
AF defined by break in bank slope; AF heavily vegetated with non-native grasses, including shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).
✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Medium silt
80 5 10 65
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by surface relief. Uplands heavily vegetated with non-native grasses, including shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and also included horehound (Marrubium vulgare) and a black elder (Sambucus nigra).
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 1130
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 6 25 25
Sarah Krejca, Chelsea Polevy
✔
✔
Exeter Cherry Valley Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.962849, -117.017148
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; swale-like feature within area of non-native grassland ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 6 06/03/2021 1130
Area did not contain clear bed and bank indicators; no change in sediment texture or break in slope; vegetation in swale and adjacent upland area did not differ (both heavily vegetated and dominated by non-native grasses). Data was collected during a drought year; however, historic aerials and previous delineation note consistent conditions.
N/A
Swale
Gentle slope
Gentle slope
33.962849, -117.017148
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 6 06/03/2021 1130
N/A
N/A
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 1415
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 7 33 34
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Exeter Cherry Valley Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.962282, -117.021353
Area receives upstream flows from runoff from developed road (Brookside Avenue) and from culvert that crosses under Brookside Avenue; site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; large drainage feature in southern portion of site within area mapped as tree of heaven.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 7 06/03/2021 1415
✔
✔
✔
✔
Approximately 8-foot wide OHWM primarily defined by a change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species and cover, and faint break in bank slope. Data was collected during a drought year; however, indicators still observed and consistent with anticipated extent of OHWM based on review of aerials and site conditions/topography. ✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 8' LF/AF/OHWM
Facing upstream
(east)
55' Top of bank
UplandUpland
33.962282, -117.021353
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 7 06/03/2021 1415
✔
Same as OHWM
Medium sand
0 0 0 0
✔
✔
AF defined by faint break in bank slope; AF unvegetated. ✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Medium silt
100 10 5 85
✔
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by soil development and surface relief; uplands were dominated with non-native grasses and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).
APPENDIX F
A NTECEDENT P RECIPITATION T OOL OUTPUT
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
Jul
2021
Aug
2021
Sep
2021
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)2021-04-22
2021-03-23
2021-02-21
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-04-22 0.279528 1.340945 0.153543 Dry 1 3 3
2021-03-23 1.466535 3.561024 4.992126 Wet 3 2 6
2021-02-21 1.404331 5.958268 2.814961 Normal 2 1 2
Result Normal Conditions - 11
Coordinates 33.965141, -117.019732
Observation Date 2021-04-22
Elevation (ft)2485.7
Drought Index (PDSI)Severe drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent CORONA 12.5 SE 33.7346, -117.4315 1301.837 28.496 1183.863 46.559 149 0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 3.0 NW 33.9855, -116.5415 1338.911 27.438 1146.789 43.813 1581 0 HOMELAND 1.7 NNE 33.769, -117.0923 2248.032 14.177 237.668 9.749 10 3 IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW 33.7631, -116.735 6325.131 21.488 3839.431 92.171 1557 0 HEMET 4.1 ENE 33.7527, -116.9196 1698.163 15.763 787.537 19.507 1076 87 CORONA 12.8 SE 33.7307, -117.4276 1403.871 28.463 1081.829 43.6 102 0 BIG BEAR LAKE 34.2431, -116.9169 6752.953 20.086 4267.253 94.751 6722 0 ELSINORE 33.6861, -117.3458 1268.045 26.87 1217.655 44.81 135 0 HEMET 33.7381, -116.8939 1811.024 17.269 674.676 19.422 21 0
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
Jul
2021
Aug
2021
Sep
2021
Oct
2021
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)2021-06-03
2021-05-04
2021-04-04
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-06-03 0.054331 0.403937 0.019685 Dry 1 3 3
2021-05-04 0.170079 1.26063 0.251969 Normal 2 2 4
2021-04-04 0.558661 2.34252 4.80315 Wet 3 1 3
Result Normal Conditions - 10
Coordinates 33.965141, -117.019732
Observation Date 2021-06-03
Elevation (ft)2485.7
Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought (2021-05)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent CORONA 12.5 SE 33.7346, -117.4315 1301.837 28.496 1183.863 46.559 149 0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 3.0 NW 33.9855, -116.5415 1338.911 27.438 1146.789 43.813 1581 0 HOMELAND 1.7 NNE 33.769, -117.0923 2248.032 14.177 237.668 9.749 10 3 IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW 33.7631, -116.735 6325.131 21.488 3839.431 92.171 1557 0 HEMET 4.1 ENE 33.7527, -116.9196 1698.163 15.763 787.537 19.507 1076 86 CORONA 12.8 SE 33.7307, -117.4276 1403.871 28.463 1081.829 43.6 102 0 BEAUMONT 2.5 NW 33.9543, -117.012 2532.152 0.87 46.452 0.432 0 1 BIG BEAR LAKE 34.2431, -116.9169 6752.953 20.086 4267.253 94.751 6722 0 ELSINORE 33.6861, -117.3458 1268.045 26.87 1217.655 44.81 135 0 HEMET 33.7381, -116.8939 1811.024 17.269 674.676 19.422 21 0
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
Jul
2021
Aug
2021
Sep
2021
Oct
2021
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)2021-06-07
2021-05-08
2021-04-08
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-06-07 0.017323 0.124409 0.019685 Normal 2 3 6
2021-05-08 0.314173 1.022047 0.251969 Dry 1 2 2
2021-04-08 0.422441 2.075591 4.80315 Wet 3 1 3
Result Normal Conditions - 11
Coordinates 33.965141, -117.019732
Observation Date 2021-06-07
Elevation (ft)2485.7
Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought (2021-05)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent CORONA 12.5 SE 33.7346, -117.4315 1301.837 28.496 1183.863 46.559 149 0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 3.0 NW 33.9855, -116.5415 1338.911 27.438 1146.789 43.813 1581 0 HOMELAND 1.7 NNE 33.769, -117.0923 2248.032 14.177 237.668 9.749 10 3 IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW 33.7631, -116.735 6325.131 21.488 3839.431 92.171 1557 0 HEMET 4.1 ENE 33.7527, -116.9196 1698.163 15.763 787.537 19.507 1076 86 CORONA 12.8 SE 33.7307, -117.4276 1403.871 28.463 1081.829 43.6 102 0 BEAUMONT 2.5 NW 33.9543, -117.012 2532.152 0.87 46.452 0.432 0 1 BIG BEAR LAKE 34.2431, -116.9169 6752.953 20.086 4267.253 94.751 6722 0 ELSINORE 33.6861, -117.3458 1268.045 26.87 1217.655 44.81 135 0 HEMET 33.7381, -116.8939 1811.024 17.269 674.676 19.422 21 0
APPENDIX G
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix G. Site Photographs1
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation – April 22, 2021; June 3 and 7, 2021
1 See corresponding Figure 5 series for Photo Point Locations. See Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Sections 6 through 8 for a discussion of each feature.
Photo 1. Looking southwest towards Erosional Feature (EF)-1 (yellow line). Vegetation surrounding EF-1 had been recently mowed. EF-1 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 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) indicators. (33.968462, -117.024590). June 3, 2021.
Photo 2. View of OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP) 1, facing west, within the lower topographic area between two gentle slopes just west of EF-1. The lower topographic area did not exhibit any bed and bank indicators, there was no break in slope, and the sediment texture and vegetation did not differ from the lower topographic area to the adjacent slopes (33.968296,
-117.024925). June 3, 2021.
Photo 3. View of area of low topography between EF-1 and EF-2, facing southwest (33.967847, -117.024635). June 3, 2021.
Photo 4. View of ODP 2, facing southwest, within EF-2. The gully/erosional feature 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, and did not continue downstream (33.967305, -117.025013). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-2
Photo 5. Overview of area of lower topography located east of EF-2, facing east (33.967002, -117.025087). June 3, 2021.
Photo 6. Overview of area of lower topography located west of Basin (B)-2, facing southwest (33.966258, -117.022864). June 3, 2021.
Photo 7. Overview of Non-Wetland Water (NWW)-1A and NWW-1, facing south. NWW-1A and NWW-1 converge just before
continuing off site and downstream and exhibiting a more defined bed and bank (33.966304, -117.025167). June 3, 2021.
Photo 8. Upstream view of ODP 3, facing southeast, within NWW- 1A. The OHWM was defined by a faint break in bank slope and a change in vegetation cover. NWW-1A and NWW-1 continue
downstream where OHWM indicators become more prominent
(33.966120, -117.025049). June 3, 2021.
NWW-1A
NWW-1
Appendix G-3
Photo 9. Downstream view of ODP 3, facing west, within NWW- 1A. As NWW-1A continues downstream, OHWM indicators
become more prominent (33.966076, -117.024773). June 3, 2021.
Photo 10. Downstream view of NWW-1 from upstream extent, facing west. As NWW-1 continues downstream, OHWM
indicators become more prominent (33.965835, -117.024734).
June 3, 2021.
Photo 11. View of B-1, which contained several mulefat
(Baccharis salicifolia), facing north. B-1 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.966130, -117.021422). June 3, 2021.
Photo 12. View of B-2, which contained some mulefat and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), facing northeast. B-2 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.966130,
-117.021422). June 3, 2021.
OHWM
TOB
Appendix G-4
Photo 13. View of B-3, facing south. B-3 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.965818, -117.021455). June 3, 2021.
Photo 14. View of Wetland Data Form Point (WDP) 1 (white arrow) within small stand of mule fat, facing east, within B-4. WDP 1 met the wetland hydrology parameter; however, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soil parameters were not met at WDP 1. B- 4 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.965370, -117.022221). June 3, 2021.
Photo 15. View of B-5 facing southeast. B-5 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.965122 -117.021874).
June 3, 2021.
Photo 16. View of area mapped by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as a “Reservoir,” facing west. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.965010, -117.021979). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-5
Photo 17. Downstream view of NWW-2, facing west. (33.965125, -117.022334). June 7, 2021.
Photo 18. Upstream view of ODP 4, facing east, within NWW-2.
The OHWM was defined by a faint break in bank slope and a change in vegetation cover (33.964853, -117.023670). June 7, 2021.
Photo 19. Downstream view of ODP 4, facing west, within NWW-
2. Vegetation was dominated by non-native grasses, including short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon)
(33.964874, -117.023356). June 7, 2021.
Photo 20. View of WDP 2 (white arrow), facing west, within NWW-
2. WDP 2 did not meet the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology parameters (33.964962, -117.023251). June 7, 2021.
OHWM
O
HWM
Appendix G-6
Photo 21. View of NWW-2A (yellow line), which showed faint indicators of an OHWM, as it continues into NWW-2, facing northwest (33.964876, -117.022516). June 7, 2021.
Photo 22. View of culvert outlets located along the southern extent of the review area under Brookside Avenue, facing south.
Flows from the culvert outlets continue into NWW-3 (33.961603, -117.018517). June 3, 2021.
Photo 23. Downstream view of NWW-3, facing northwest, located just north of the two culvert outlets under Brookside Avenue before NWW-3 converges with NWW-3A (33.961636,
-117.018604). June 3, 2021.
Photo 24. View of EF-4 within the review area, facing west. EF-4 continues west into Swale (S)-1, which ultimately converges with NWW-3A (33.963245, -117.013837). April 22, 2021.
NWW-2
TOB
O
H
W
M
Appendix G-7
Photo 25. View of ODP 6, facing east, within S-1. S-1 did not exhibit any bed and bank indicators, there was no change in sediment texture or break in slope, and vegetation did not differ between the swale and the adjacent upland area (33.962812, -117.017420). June 3, 2021.
Photo 26. View at upstream extent of NWW-3A, facing
southwest, just west of S-2 (33.963458, -117.016526). June 3, 2021.
Photo 27. Upstream view of ODP 5, facing northeast, within NWW-3A. The OHWM was primarily defined by a a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture, and change in vegetation species (33.963053, -117.017202). June 3, 2021.
Photo 28. Downstream view of ODP 5, facing southwest, within NWW-3A (33.963266, -117.017032). June 3, 2021.
O
HW
M
TOB
OHW
M Page 1274 of 2513
Appendix G-8
Photo 29. View of S-3, facing south, as it travels towards NWW- 3A (33.9632961, -117.018316). April 22, 2021.
Photo 30. Downstream view of NWW-3A, facing southwest
(33.962811, -117.018492). June 3, 2021.
Photo 31. Downstream view of area of NWW-3A exhibiting a faint OHWM, facing west (33.962373, -117.019364). June 3, 2021.
Photo 32. Downstream view of NWW-3, located west of the convergence of NWW-3 and NWW-3A, facing southwest
(33.962054, -117.02037). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-9
Photo 33. Upstream view of ODP 7, facing east, within NWW-3.
The OHWM was primarily defined by a change in average
sediment texture, change in vegetation species and cover, and faint break in bank slope (33.962257, -117.021513).
Photo 34. Downstream view of ODP 7, facing west, within NWW- 3 (33.962335, -117.021187). June 3, 2021.
Photo 35. View of WDP 3, facing north, within NWW-3. WDP 3 met the hydrophytic vegetation parameter; however, hydric soil and wetland hydrology parameters were not met within WDP 3 (33.962696, -117.022892). June 7, 2021.
Photo 36. View of EF-6 (yellow line), facing northwest, which travels into area with some mulefat and tree tobacco, just east of NWW-3B. EF-6 did not appear to contribute flows to NWW-3B (33.963667, -117.020341). June 3, 2021.
O
HWM
OHW
M Page 1276 of 2513
Appendix G-10
Photo 37. View of EF-7 (yellow arrow), just south of EF-6, facing south/southwest. EF-7 converges with EF-8 (white arrow), neither of which appeared to contribute flows to NWW-3B (33.963581, -117.020494). June 3, 2021.
Photo 38. Looking downstream from the south side of the upstream extent of NWW-3B, facing northwest (33.963553, -117.021142). June 3, 2021.
Photo 39. View of D-1, facing east (33.965103, -117.019365).
April 22, 2021.
Photo 40. View of area where D-1 abruptly stops, facing south.
Flows likely continue as sheet flow into S-5, before continuing into NWW-3B1 (33.964824, -117.020845). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-11
Photo 41. View of NWW-3B1, facing south. Flows continue south/southwest into NWW-3B (white arrow) (33.964550,
-117.021793). June 3, 2021.
Photo 42. Downstream view of NWW-3B, facing west
(33.963775, -117.022856). April 22, 2021.
Photo 43. Downstream view of the convergence of NWW-3 and NWW-3B, facing west, before NWW-3 continues off site
(33.963316, -117.023726). June 3, 2021.
Photo 44. View of slight depressional area surrounded by mulefat scrub, located south of NWW-3B, facing west. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.963283, -117.021269). June 3, 2021.
NWW-3 NWW-3B
NWW-3B
Appendix G-12
Photo 45. East facing view of area mapped by USGS NHD as a “Reservoir” and where a basin was previously located east of EF-
8. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.963493,
-117.020227). June 3, 2021.
Photo 46. Southeast facing view of area where a basin was previously located west of S-3. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.963274, -117.019648). June 3, 2021.
APPENDIX H
LITERATURE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES
APPENDIX H. LITERATURE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. J. Rosatti (eds). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.
California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC). 1994. Fish and Game Commission Comment to the Department of Fish and Game on the Wetland Policy Implementation Proposal.
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.
Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). June 17.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices.
Google Earth Pro V 7.3.3.7786. 2021. Riverside County, California. 33°57'57.55"N, 117°01'05.89"W. Eye alt 4273 feet. Image Google. Last accessed October 2021.
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.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2019. Jepson eFlora. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Michael Brandman Associates. 2004. Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Sunny- Cal Specific Plan Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. August.
Michael Brandman Associates. 2006. Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Sunny- Cal Specific Plan, Annexation, And Sphere of Influence Amendment, SCH# 2004121092. May.
Munsell Color. 2015. Munsell Soil-Color Charts with Genuine Munsell Color Chips, 2009 Year Revised. Grand Rapids, MI.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Drought for May 2021. Last accessed May 2021. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). No date - a. Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List. Last accessed May 2021.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). No date - b. Hydric Soils Overview. Last accessed May 2021.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_05 3985
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS) Database. Monthly Total Precipitation for Beaumont 2.5 NW, CA 2020 - 2021. Last accessed May 2021. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=06065 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018a. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.2.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018b. Official Soil Series Descriptions (Online). San Diego County, California. Version 10, Sep 13, 2018. Last accessed May 2021. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx .
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.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. Last accessed May 2021.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 1986. Index to Map of the Santa Ana Hydrologic Basin Planning Area. Last accessed May 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/sbp ermit/forms/region8_hydrologic_areas.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2020. Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) - v1.0.19.
Last accessed June 2021. https://github.com/jDeters-USACE/Antecedent-Precipitation- Tool/releases/tag/v1.0.19
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2018. Arid West 2018 Regional Wetland Plant List.
National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4. Last accessed May 2021. http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2018/Regions/pdf/reg_AW_2018v1.p df
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2017. USACE Los Angeles District’s Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2016. Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program. February 10.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. K.E. Curtis and R.W. Lichvar. EDRC/CRREL TN-10-1. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, A Delineation Manual. R.W. Lichvar, and S.M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12.
Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 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. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2000. Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate wetland hydrology. Sprecher, S.W., and A.G. Warne. ERDC TR-WRAP-00-1.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. December.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. 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/
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/ University of California – Santa Barbara (UCSB). No date. Aerial Photography Collection. (1938 – 1977). Last accessed June 2021. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/
APPENDIX I
ORM BULK UPLOAD AQUATIC RESOURCES OR
CONSOLIDATED EXCEL SPREADSHEET
Waters_Name State Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude NWW-1 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.018 ACRE DELINEATE 33.965908 -117.025153 NWW-1A CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.021 ACRE DELINEATE 33.966006 -117.025084 NWW-2 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.087 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964929 -117.023925 NWW-2A CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.004 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964977 -117.022656 NWW-2B CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.012 ACRE DELINEATE 33.965185 -117.022994 NWW-2C CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.007 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964845 -117.023224 NWW-3 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.385 ACRE DELINEATE 33.962391 -117.021747 NWW-3A CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.146 ACRE DELINEATE 33.962760 -117.018132 NWW-3B CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.117 ACRE DELINEATE 33.963540 -117.022834 NWW-3B1 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.0301001 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964055 -117.021934
APPENDIX J
GIS DATA (PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY TO AGENCIES)
Beaumont Summit Station Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Beaumont July 2022
Appendix C3: Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
PROJECT DBESP 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 PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING i
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 3 3 Riparian/Riverine Mitigation (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) ................................................................... 9
3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Results/Impacts ............................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency ............................................................................................... 13 4 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Mitigation (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) ........................................... 14
4.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Results/Impacts ............................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency ............................................................................................... 15 5 Mitigation and Equivalency (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) .................................................................. 16
5.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area - Plants ....................................................................... 16
5.2 Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Mammals ......................................................................................................................... 17
5.4 Amphibians ...................................................................................................................... 17 6 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly .................................................................................................. 18
6.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Results/Impacts ............................................................................................................... 18
6.3 Mitigation and Equivalency ............................................................................................... 18 7 References ............................................................................................................................... 19
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING ii
TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Communities within Project Boundary ............................................................ 4 Table 2. Direct Impacts on Riparian/Riverine Habitat .................................................................... 12
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Project Vicinity
Figure 3. Hydrologic Units
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Survey Data
Figure 5. Vegetation Communities
Figure 6. MSHCP Riverine/Riparian
Figure 7. Impacts
Figure 8. Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program Proximity Map Figure 9. MSHCP Areas
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix B – Beaumont Summit Station Project Burrowing Owl Survey Report
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 1
1 Executive Summary
Kimley-Horn (project applicant) retained Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) to prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report for the 191-acre Beaumont Summit Station Project (project or proposed project) in the city of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. RBC prepared this DBESP Report in accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority [RCA] 2003) for the proposed project.
The project site is not located within a Cellgroup or Criteria Area. As such, the project is not subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) or Joint Project Review (JPR) processes. The project site is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for Marvin’s onion (Allium marvinii) and multi-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), as well as the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. A habitat assessment and focused surveys for both Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya were conducted the spring of 2021; no suitable habitat for these species was observed within the project site, and no occurrences of either species was observed. Focused breeding season surveys for burrowing owl were also conducted for the project in accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2005). The the project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl; however, no burrowing owl(s) or burrowing owl sign were observed on site during protocol surveys.
Approximately 8.48 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas occur within the 191-acre project boundary (or project site), 2.41 acres of which fall within the project impact area and will be permanently and directly impacted by the proposed project. The riparian/riverine areas within the project boundary have moderate potential to support least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and very low to no potential to support the riparian bird species southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). An individual male least Bell’s vireo was observed during protocol surveys, outside of the project impact area.
No suitable vernal pool habitat that could support Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) occur within the project site. The project site is not located within the Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA), Mammal, Invertebrate, or Amphibian Survey Areas.
The project applicant proposes offsetting impacts on 2.41 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources at a 3:1 mitigation ratio through the purchase of 4.82 acres/credits (a 2:1 mitigation ratio) from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the Santa Ana River Watershed in-lieu fee [ILF] Program), as available; and an additional 1:1 mitigation through either on-site preservation, with a focus on removal invasive species and replanting with native species, or the purchase of 2.41 acres/credits from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program), as available. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will make final determination regarding compensatory mitigation requirements during the permit evaluation
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 2
process. If on-site enhancement is pursued, an enhancement and revegetation plan will developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies during the aquatic resources permitting process.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3
2 Introduction
2.1 PROJECT AREA
The approximately 191-acre proposed project is located south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, north of Brookside Avenue, and east of Interstate 10 (I-10; Figure 1). The current zoning for the project site is Specific Plan. All proposed changes associated with the project are located within areas previously annexed to the City of Beaumont by Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). 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). The following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) are associated with the project site: 407-230-22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27, -28, 407-190- 016, and 407-190-017.
The project 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 commonly used by the Corps, the RWQCB also defines watershed boundaries by Hydrologic Units (HUs). The majority of the project site is within the Santa Ana Basin, the Santa Ana River HU, and the Beaumont Hydrologic Subarea (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [SARWQCB] 1986; SARWQCB 2019).
The proposed project site is within the MSHCP Plan Area but not located within a Cellgroup or Criteria Area. The project is identified as occurring within the NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya, as well as the MSHCP Survey Area for burrowing owl.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Plot Plan Approval, and a Development Agreement. The proposed project is divided into five parcels with Parcels 1, 2, and 3 (Specific Plan Planning Area 1) designated for e- commerce uses with supporting office. Parcel 4 (Specific Plan Planning Area 2) would include the development of up to 150,000 square feet of commercial uses. Parcel 5 (Specific Plan Planning Area 3) would remain as open space. The project proposes to amend the existing General Plan to allow for these uses on the 191-acre project. The proposed project will impact only approximately 156 acres within proposed project boundary.
2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Elevations on site range from approximately 2,400 to 2,600 above mean sea level (amsl). Seven soil types occur on site varying in percent slopes (Figure 4). The project site is composed of nine parcels that support several upland and riparian vegetation communities (Figure 5). The flat areas of the project site are primarily dominated non-native grassland and developed habitats. The
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4
drainage features within the project site are composed primarily of non-native grassland, mulefat scrub, and non-native riparian (Figure 6).
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.
2.3.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
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 1).
Vegetation within the project site is predominantly comprised of non-native grassland.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities within Project Boundary Vegetation Community/Land Use Project Site (acres)1
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
1Acreages 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.
Chamise Chapparal
This chaparral vegetation community (>0.01 acre) is overwhelmingly dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). Within the project site, the chamise chaparral contains some 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.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 5
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 Cherry Valley Boulevard.
Eucalyptus Woodland
The 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 (B. 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 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.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6
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.
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.
2.3.2 SOILS
Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map of the project area, seven soil map units, outlined below, occur within the project site boundary (Figure 4). The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils defines hydric soils; Changes in Hydric Soils Database Selection Criteria (77 Federal Register 12234) outlines the current four hydric soil criteria. None of the soils present on site are classified as hydric soils. The
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 7
soils are described below per the USDA’s Official Soil Description and Series Classification database (NRCS 2018) and the USDA’s Soil Survey of Wester 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.
Ramona sandy loam, deep, 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.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 8
Ramona sandy loam, deep, 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.), California buckwheat, and chamise. 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.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 9
3 Riparian/Riverine Mitigation (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)
3.1 METHODS
All projects within the MSHCP Plan Area require an evaluation of potential impacts on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools, as those terms are defined in the MSHCP, and the protected species associated with those habitats.
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 riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats. RBC used binoculars (10 x 42) to aid in the observation of biological resources during biological surveys. Plants were identified using the Jepson Manual 2nd edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and local botanical knowledge. Vegetation community boundaries were delineated at a 1:2400 scale (1 inch = 200 feet) aerial photograph following Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). RBC completed the Beaumont Summit Station Project Biological Resources and MSHCP Consistency Report in July 2022 (RBC 2022a).
RBC Regulatory Specialists Sarah Krejca and Chelsea Polevy conducted an initial jurisdictional assessment on April 22, 2021, followed by a formal aquatic resources delineation on June 3, 2021, to confirm the presence and extent of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources and MSHCP riparian/riverine areas. RBC regulatory specialist Sarah Krejca and Shanti Santulli conducted an additional aquatic resources delineation field visit on June 7, 2021. RBC completed the Beaumont Summit Station Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Report in July 2022 (ARDR; RBC 2022b; Appendix A). Figure 6 shows the results of the formal jurisdictional delineation.
During RBC’s jurisdictional delineation field visit on April 22, 2021, June 3, 2021, and June 7, 2021, RBC evaluated all areas with depressions, drainage patterns, and/or wetland vegetation within the ARDR review area (including the project boundary and a 50-foot buffer; Figure 6) for potential jurisdictional status, with a focus on the presence of defined channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Details regarding methods used to delineate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional boundaries are included in the project’s ARDR (Appendix A).
While in the field, potentially jurisdictional features were recorded using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with a level of accuracy ranging from eight to 24 feet. RBC staff refined the data using aerial photographs and topographic maps to ensure accuracy.
RBC also conducted protocol surveys for Least Bell’s Vireo in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001), based on the results of the habitat assessments. The survey included all suitable Least Bell’s Vireo riparian habitat in the the project site, as well as a 500-foot buffer surrounding the project site. Surveys were completed between April 22, 2021 and July 16, 2021.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 10
3.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
3.2.1 DIRECT IMPACTS
Direct impacts are those that involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of natural resources or habitats (i.e., vegetative communities or substrate) that in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife species that depend on that habitat. Direct impacts include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife of low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibian, reptiles, and small mammals). The project boundary contains approximately 8.48 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, of which, 2.41 acres will be directly impacted by construction; approximately 6.07 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas will be avoided on site as discussed further below (Table 2; Figure 7). The on-site MSHCP riparian/riverine areas conicide with CDFW-jurisdictional vegetated streambed and associated riparian habitat.
Non-Wetland Water (NWW)-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 (Figure 6) 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 the drainages and associated tributaries also previously received runoff from the former on-site agricultural operations (poultry and livestock farm) and are highly incised and disturbed. Based on field observations and a review of Google Earth aerial imagery (Google Earth Pro 2021), USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) data (USGS 2020), and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data (USFWS 2019), 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” (RCA 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-heaven; and NWW-3 and NWW-3A support blue elderberry stands (Figure 6). 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. An individual male least Bell’s vireo was observed during the first two of eight protocol surveys foraging and moving frequently along the mulefat canopy of NWW-3. 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
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 11
protocol surveys. The riparian/riverine features within the project site do not, however, support suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow-billed cuckoo; these species prefer dense native riparian woodlands and forests which are absent from the project site.
Therefore, there is very low to no potential for southwestern willow flycatcher or western yellow- billed cuckoo to occur within the project site, and no focused surveys for these species were conducted.
The proposed project will result in permanent, direct impacts on NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3B, NWW-3B1, and a small portion of NWW-3A. The project applicant designed the proposed project to avoid impacts on NWW-3, the primary and highest quality riparian/riverine resource within the project boundary, as well as a majority of NWW- 3A (a tributary of NWW-3), as detailed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 7.
Several basins, swales, erosional features, and an abandoned ditch also occur within the project impact footprint. These features were determined to be non-jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW (Appendix A, Section 6.6); they also do not meet the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine feature 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, these non- jurisdictional features, dominated by non-native grassland vegetation, 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). A
0.67-acre area of isolated, non-native riparian habitat located south of NWW-3 and the small areas of mulefat scrub located south and east of NWW-3B, totalling 0.38 acre, (Figure 7), also 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.
No areas within the project site meet the MSHCP definition of a vernal pool. The basins observed on site are abandoned, manmade settling basins (described as Basin [B-]1 through B-5 per the project ARDR [Appendix A, Section 6.6 and Figures 5A to 5C]). Obligate (OBL) hydrophytes and FAC 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 OBL 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 (See Appendix D of Appendix A). 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 A; Figure 4), 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 A) during the formal aquatic resources
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 12
delineation on June 7, 2021, which was representative of the conditions within B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-5. The ARDR provides additional details regarding these non-jurisdictional features (Appendix A; Section 6.6).
As detailed below in Table 2 and shown in Figure 7, the proposed project will directly impact 2.41 acres of riparian/riverine habitat.
Table 2. Direct Impacts on Riparian/Riverine Habitat
Feature
Name
Aquatic Resource
Type
Acreage within
Project Boundary
Direct Impact
Acreage
NWW-1 Vegetated Streambed 0.02 0.02
NWW-1A Vegetated Streambed 0.03 0.03
NWW-2 Vegetated Streambed 0.71 0.71
NWW-2A Vegetated Streambed <0.01 <0.01
Riparian Habitat 0.03 0.03
NWW-2B Vegetated Streambed 0.08 0.08
NWW-2C Vegetated Streambed 0.07 0.07
NWW-3 Vegetated Streambed 4.36 0.00
Riparian Habitat 0.72 0.00
NWW-3A Vegetated Streambed 1.01 0.06
Riparian Habitat 0.01 0.00
NWW-3B Vegetated Streambed 1.04 1.00
Riparian Habitat 0.21 0.21
NWW-3B1 Vegetated Streambed 0.18 0.18
Total1 8.48 2.41
1Acreages 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.
3.2.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS
Indirect impacts are considered to be those impacts associated with the project that involve the effects of alteration of the existing habitat and an increase in human population and or land use within the project site. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to the project site.
Indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise and light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), competitors (e.g., exotic plants and non-native animals), and trampling and unauthorized recreational use due to the
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 13
increase in human population. Other permanent indirect effects may occur that are related to water quality and storm water management, including trash/debris, toxic materials, and dust.
The project site is not located in proximity to any MSHCP Conservation Areas. Adjacent lands include residential development to the south, I-10 to the southwest, rural residences with livestock pens to the east, and undeveloped land to the north and west.
Final project design and construction will incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to reduce and/or eliminate indirect effects on MSHCP riparian/riverine resources as required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance per the Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report (City of Beaumont 2021). Construction water quality BMPs will be required to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the downstream surface water quality. Furthermore, the proposed project will treat on-site runoff with Modular Wetland System (MWS) vaults. Post-construction on-site flows would be directed towards the MWS vaults for treatment and removal of pollutants, then into a proposed underground detention system, and ultimately discharged into the ephemeral stream to the west of the project site (i.e., the downstream portion of NWW-3). Discharged flows would not exceed pre-project flows per CEQA requirements.
Additionally, if least Bell’s vireo nesting is discovered, either during protocol surveys, monthly presence/absence surveys, or incidentally, 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. Artificial light shall not be cast into suitable habitat containing active nests when night work occurs.
As such, the proposed project will not result in significant indirect effects on MSHCP riparian/riverine areas including associated species. Furthermore, the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines do not apply to the proposed project.
3.3 MITIGATION AND EQUIVALENCY
3.3.1 DIRECT EFFECTS
To meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the project applicant proposes offsetting impacts to the 2.41 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources at a 3:1 mitigation ratio through the purchase of 4.82 credits (2:1 mitigation ratio) from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program located within the Santa Ana River watershed [Figure 8]), as available; and an additional 1:1 mitigation through either on-site preservation, with a focus on removal invasive species and replanting with native species, or the purchase of 2.41 acres/credits from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program), as available. The Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program includes enhancement and rehabilitated riverine and riparian resources within the Santa Ana River watershed. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant will provide the City of Beaumont with purchase confirmation.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 14
The 2.41 acres of on-site MSHCP riparian/riverine resources within the project impact area provide minimal aquatic resource functions due to the highly disturbed nature of the property (e.g., regularly mowed, grazed, and farmed land) and historic degradation and runoff into the on-site aquatic features from previous on-site farming operations. Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.2.1, the proposed project was designed to avoid impacts on NWW-3, the primary and highest quality riparian/riverine resource within the project boundary.
The purchase of re-establishment and/or rehabitiation credits and preservation of 4.82 acres of high-quality sensitive resources at the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program and additional mitigation of 1:1 through either on-site preservation or the purchase of 2.41 acres/credits from an in-watershed mitigation bank (i.e., the the Santa Ana River Watershed ILF Program), as available, to offset impacts to 2.41 acres of highly disturbed MSHCP riparian/riverine resources meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative. Additional information and a detailed justification regarding the proposed mitigation will be included in the applicant’s forthcoming Notification of Streambed Alteration to CDFW.
3.3.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP provides guidelines pertaining to the urban/wildlands interface, which are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating public and private developments in proximity to an MSHCP Conservation Area. The project site is not adjacent to an existing MSHCP Conservation Area; therefore, no mitigation is proposed to occur to offset indirect effects.
However, final project design will incorporate the appropriate BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate indirect effects.
4 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Mitigation (MSHCP
Section 6.1.3)
4.1 METHODS
RBC queried the project site against the NEPSSA (Figure 9). The RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the project is located within a NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya (RCA 2021). 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 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.
4.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
The project site does not contain appropriate soils or suitable habitat for Marvin’s onion and many- stemmed dudleya, and therefore the project will not impact Narrow Endemic Plants. The proposed project will be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 15
4.3 MITIGATION AND EQUIVALENCY
4.3.1 DIRECT EFFECTS
There will be no unavoidable direct impacts to narrow endemic plant species resulting from the project.
4.3.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS
There will be no unavoidable indirect impacts to narrow endemic plant species resulting from the project.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 16
5 Mitigation and Equivalency (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)
5.1 CRITERIA AREA SPECIES SURVEY AREA – PLANTS
5.1.1 METHODS
RBC queried the project site against the CASSA for plant species (Figure 9). The project site is not located within a CASSA for any plant species; therefore, RBC did not conduct surveys for any plant species listed in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
5.1.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
The project site is not located within a CASSA for any plant species. The project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
5.1.3 MITIGATION AND EQUIVALENCY
5.1.3.1 Direct Effects
There will be no unavoidable direct impacts to CASSA plant species resulting from the project.
5.1.3.2 Indirect Effects
There will be no unavoidable indirect impacts to CASSA plant species resulting from the project.
5.2 BURROWING OWL
5.2.1 METHODS
The RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the project is located within a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area (RCA 2021; Figure 9). 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 B). 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.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 17
5.2.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
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.
Mitigation and Equivalency
5.2.2.1 Direct Effects
There will be no unavoidable direct impacts to burrowing owl with the project.
5.2.2.2 Indirect Effects
There will be no unavoidable indirect impacts to burrowing with the project.
5.3 MAMMALS
5.3.1 METHODS
RBC queried the project site against Mammal Species Survey Areas (Figure 9). The project site is not located within any Mammal Species Survey Areas; therefore, no surveys were conducted for any mammal species listed in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
5.3.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
The project site is not located within a survey area for any MSHCP mammal species. The project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
5.3.3 MITIGATION AND EQUIVALENCY
5.3.3.1 Direct Effects
There will be no unavoidable direct impacts to MSHCP mammal species resulting from the project.
5.3.3.2 Indirect Effects
There will be no unavoidable indirect impacts to MSHCP mammal species resulting from the project.
5.4 AMPHIBIANS
5.4.1 METHODS
RBC queried the project site against Amphibian Species Survey Areas per the MSHCP. The project site is not located within any Amphibian Species Survey Areas; therefore, no surveys for any amphibian species listed in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP were conducted for the project.
5.4.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
The project site is not located within a survey area for any MSHCP amphibian species. The project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 18
6 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly
6.1 METHODS
RBC queried the project site against NRCS soils maps for the proposed project (Figure 4). The project site is not located within Delhi soil mapped within the MSHCP baseline data; therefore, no focused surveys for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly were conducted for the project.
6.2 RESULTS/IMPACTS
The project site is not located within Delhi soil mapped within the MSHCP baseline data.
6.3 MITIGATION AND EQUIVALENCY
6.3.1 DIRECT EFFECTS
There will be no unavoidable direct impacts to Delhi Sands flower-loving fly resulting from the project.
6.3.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS
There will be no unavoidable indirect impacts to Delhi Sands flower-loving fly resulting from the project.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 19
7 References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti (eds). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
City of Beaumont. 2021. Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report. November.
Google Earth Pro V 7.3.3.7786. 2021. Riverside County, California. 33°57'57.55"N, 117°01'05.89"W. Eye alt 4273 feet. Image Google. Last accessed October 2021.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2019. Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. Last accessed January 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018. Official Soil Series Descriptions (Online). San Diego County, California. Version 10, Sep 13, 2018. Last accessed May 2021. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx .
Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC). 2022a. Beaumont Summit Station Biological Resources and MSHCP Consistency Report. July 5.
Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC). 2022b. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. July 1.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. Last accessed May 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/ programs/basin_plan/
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 1986. Index to Map of the Santa Ana Hydrologic Basin Planning Area. Last accessed May 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/sbpermit/forms/ region8_hydrologic_areas.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. 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/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines, Carlsbad, California.
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). 2021. WRC Information Tool Map.
Accessed April 2021 https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c 29ebd3acd67467abd Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 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
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT DBESP REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 20
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
?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 1312 of 2513
Project Boundary ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
2 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
Project Vicinity
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangles (El Casco);T2S, R1W, S29-31, San Jacinto/San Gorgonio Land Grant;Base Map: National Geographic Society, EsriPage 1313 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
Project Boundary
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
Project BoundaryNHD Watershed 8-digit HUCNHD Watershed 10-digit HUCNHD Watershed 12-digit HUC ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3 BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Hydrologic Units
0 3 6
Miles N
Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2020Source: USGS NHD 2020Page 1314 of 2513
Project BoundarySoilsGorgonio 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
0 300 600
Feet N
Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2020Source: USDA NRCS 2018
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
NRCS Soils Survey DataFigure
4
Brookside Ave!"`$
Cherry Valley Blvd
Project BoundaryVegetation CommunitiesMulefat ScrubNon-native RiparianBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) StandsTorrey's Scrub Oak(Quercus x acutidens) StandsRiversidean Sage ScrubChamise ChaparralNon-native GrasslandNon-native VegetationEucalyptus WoodlandDisturbed HabitatDeveloped ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
5 0 150 300
Feet N
Vegetation Communities
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021Page 1316 of 2513
______________
_
WDP 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 Brookside Ave
!"`$
Cherry Valley Blvd
Project BoundaryARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert _Flow DirectionMSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigrassp. caerulea) StandsEucalyptus WoodlandMulefat ScrubNon-native GrasslandNon-native RiparianRiversidean Sage ScrubTorrey's Scrub Oak (Quercus xacutidens) Stands ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
6 0 150 300
Feet N
MSHCP Riverine/Riparian
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021Page 1317 of 2513
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
Brookside Ave!"`$
Cherry Valley Blvd
Legend
Pro jec t Bo undaryPro jec t Imp ac tsMSHCP Rip arian/Riverine Juris dic tio nal FeaturesVegetation CommunitiesMulefat Sc rubNo n-native Rip arianBlue Elderberry (Sambucus nigra s s p . caerulea) StandsTo rrey's Sc rub Oak(Quercus x acutidens) StandsRivers idean Sage Sc rubChamis e Chap arralNo n-native Gras s landNo n-native Vegetatio nEuc alyp tus Wo o dlandDis turbed HabitatDevelo p ed Special-Status SpeciesCo o p er's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL, nes ting)Ho rned Lark (Eremophila alpestris; WL)Leas t Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus;CA and Federally Lis ted Endangered Sp ec ies )Mac Gillivray’s Warbler(Geothlypis tolmiei; MSHCP)Swains o n's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni; ST, nes ting)Vaux's Swift (Chaetura vauxi; SSC, nes ting) ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
7 0 150 300
Feet N
Impacts
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021Page 1318 of 2513
^
^
^
!"a$
AÆ
%&h(
?z
!"`$
%&h(?z
A¹
A±
Project SiteSARW ILF AltfillischMitigation Site
SARW ILF DeleoMitigation Site
Lower San Jacinto RiverHUC 10 - 1807020203
Temescal WashHUC 10 - 1807020306
Middle Santa Ana RiverHUC 10 - 1807020308
Middle San Jacinto RiverHUC 10 - 1807020202
San Timoteo WashHUC 10 - 1807020304
Santa AnaHUC 8 - 18070203
San JacintoHUC 8 - 18070202
RIVERSIDE
PERRIS
MORENO VALLEY
JURUPA VALLEY CALIMESA
SAN JACINTO
BEAUMONT
CORONA
NORCO
MENIFEE
YUCAIPA
REDLANDSGRANDTERRACE
FONTANA
ONTARIO
CHINO
LAKE ELSINORE
^Project Site
^SARW ILF Altfillisch Mitigation Site
^SARW ILF Deleo Mitigation Site
NHD Watershed 8-digit HUCNHD Watershed 10-digit HUC ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
8 0 2 4
Miles N
Santa Ana River WatershedILF Program Proximity Map
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Date: 6/30/2022Aerial Photo: USDA NAIP 2020Source: USGS WBD, NHD 2020Page 1319 of 2513
?z
Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Champions Dr
Oak Valley Pkwy Hannon RdUnion StC
A'
937 934 935 940
1024 1015
1014
1125
1032
1126
Project BoundaryCriteria CellsCriteria Cell GroupNarrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area 8Mammal Species Survey Area 2Mammal Species Survey Area 3Burrowing Owl Survey Area ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
9 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
MSHCP Areas
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2018Regional Map: National Geographic, Esri 2012Page 1320 of 2513
Appendix A
Beaumont Summit Station
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR)
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 1356 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 1357 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 1358 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 1363 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