Beaumont City Council
January 17, 2023

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-54

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project site is located on relatively flat land with general elevations of 2,570 up to 2,585 feet above mean sea level (msl) with a general topographic slope towards the southwest. The Project geotechnical report indicates that onsite soils consist primarily of silty sand, and clayey sand with minor amounts of sandy clay (CL)(SE 2020). An online soil survey for California indicates the site overlies the following four soil types according to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS):

• Ramona sandy loam (RaB3), 0-5 percent slopes, moderate erosion potential – much of the central and western portions of the site;
• Ramona sandy loam (RaC3), 5-8 percent slopes, high erosion potential, small amount of central portion of site;
• Greenfield sandy loam (GyC2), 2-8 percent slopes, moderate erosion potential - located in the far eastern portion of the site; and
• Terrace Escarpments (TeG), relatively steep with moderate erosion potential – located in the far western portion of the site associated with local drainage features.

According to the NRCS data, the site has moderate to high erosion potential so it will be important to control runoff to minimize sediment transport within and offsite. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site and surrounding area lie in flood Zone X which indicates a moderate to low-risk area and are non-special flood hazard areas which lie outside the 1% annual chance (100-year) floodplain.

The Project area has little history of flooding, and the only current flood protection is a storm drain channel found on the north, south and underneath of 2nd Street. Significant ponding occurs along Beaumont Channel at Pennsylvania Avenue due to the high freeway embankment intersecting the channel. There are currently two (2) storm drain systems and six (6) existing cross culverts with two existing headwalls with three pipe – two 60-inch diameter elliptical pipes and one 36-inch diameter pipe, as shown in the accompanying graphic, below.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-55

In accordance with the drainage design criteria from the County of Riverside Transportation Department (RCTD), the 10-year frequency storm is contained below the tops of curbs or dikes and the 100-year frequency storm will be contained within street right-of-way. There is also an existing storm drain along Pennsylvania Avenue that begins approximately 500 feet north of the Pennsylvania Avenue/6th Street intersection and ends approximately one hundred feet north of the existing I-10 off-ramp. The 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe mainline continues east along 6th Street and ends approximately 300 feet east of Illinois Avenue. A temporary bubbler structure consisting of a 60-inch standpipe lies downstream terminus of the existing storm drain west of Pennsylvania Avenue. Additionally, an existing 18-inch corrugated metal pipe is located along the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue that collects water from Caltrans right-of-way. There is an existing culvert/storm drain near the northwest corner of the Kohl’s commercial site. it is expected that this existing storm drain will be replaced with the upcoming Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2 project.

In addition to the two existing storm drain systems, there are 6 existing cross culverts. There are four existing culverts that cross underneath Pennsylvania Avenue and two other culverts that cross the Union Pacific rail east of Pennsylvania Avenue and south of I-10 Freeway. The culverts under Pennsylvania Avenue will be extended but will not be upsized nor will additional parallel culverts be installed. The flow from the 18-inch and 30-inch lines do not drain to the existing site because the train tracks, which are owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad, currently block drainage from that direction.

According to the FEMA flood zone mapping for the area, runoff from the site flows north under the I-10 Freeway in storm drains in Pennsylvania Avenue. The first receiving water downstream of the Project site is the Little San Gorgonio Creek, then the San Timoteo Creek Reach 3, and finally the Santa Ana River (Reach 1-4).

The Project proposes the addition of four reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culverts to accommodate the increased runoff from the site (i.e., increased impervious surfaces in the form or additional asphalt and concreate from extending 2nd Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Project Hydrology Report indicates the proposed drains will accommodate the additional flows and meet the drainage requirements of Riverside County Flood Control and the City of Beaumont.

Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, 2nd Street Improvement, prepared by Cozad and Fox, Inc., 11-2021 (Hydrology Report Appendix G); City of Beaumont’s 2nd Street Improvement Project Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Cozad and Fox, Inc., 1-20-2021 (Appendix A); FEMA FIRM map for Beaumont; and UC Davis online soil survey for California.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X

The Project area has existing storm drain culverts to the east in Pennsylvania Avenue and along both sides of 2nd Street near the existing self-storage facility. Runoff from the site eventually

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-56

reaches Little San Gorgonio Creek, then San Timoteo Creek Reach 3 both of which have no Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements and are not on the 303(d) list of water body impairments. The next offsite receiving waters are the Santa Ana River (Reach 1-4) which are on the EPA Approved 303(d) list of water body impairments.

According to the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan, Little San Gorgonio Creek is listed as having the following beneficial uses: Municipal and Domestic Supply, Groundwater Recharge, Water Contact Recreation, Cold Freshwater Habitat, and Wildlife Habitat. According to the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan, San Timoteo Creek Reach 3 is listed as having the following beneficial uses:

Groundwater Recharge, Water Contact Recreation, Non-contact Water Recreation, Warm Freshwater Habitat, and Wildlife Habitat.

The Project site is currently undeveloped but regularly maintained for weed abatement, with the eastern portion already developed as a two-lane roadway. Therefore, the new road Project would be a new source of pollutants that could potentially impact water quality standards or requirements if not properly designed and managed per MS4 Permit requirements. Potential pollutants of concern generated by the Project’s development as a new roadway would include the following:

• Bacterial Indicators
• Metals
• Nutrients
• Toxic Organic Compounds
• Sediments
• Trash and Debris
• Oil and Grease
The Project is not a private land development so the City does not require a project-specific water quality management plan, but the City will design the storm drain inlets from the new roadway to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under the Construction General Permit. This compliance will be achieved by standard storm drain design which minimizes offsite transport of sediment and related materials.

Based on the absence of TMDLs and 303(d) impairments in the immediate offsite area and standard design Best Management Practices (BMPs) utilized in City public works projects, the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Implementation of these measures is considered regulatory compliance which does not constitute unique mitigation under CEQA. Any impacts will be less than significant.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

X

Development of the Project’s would substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area from approximately 0.00 acres (currently all vacant land) to approximately 5 acres (i.e., essentially all of the Project site). However, onsite runoff would be collected within the new

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-57

roadway via curbs on the south side and an asphalt dike on the north side and directed to the various new down drains. Runoff from the Project site would eventually reach natural bottom channels (i.e., Little San Gorgonio Creek and San Timoteo Creek) so the runoff would still be able to percolate back into the underground aquifers so overall groundwater in the region would not be significantly depleted or eliminated. the Project’s increased impervious surface area is not anticipated to substantially reduce the amount of potential groundwater recharge from the site and infiltration systems are not recommended in the Project design. In addition, the Project proposes no pumping or extraction of groundwater. The Project would not deplete groundwater supplies and would not interfere with groundwater recharge by building additional wells or by altering a stream or wetland because these resources are not found within the Project site.

Therefore, the Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts will be less than significant.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site;
X
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off- site;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

X

iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X

i-iv) The additional stormwater runoff from the Project site is expected to be captured and discharged to the existing storm drain structure and to the Pennsylvania Avenue Storm Drain.

The Project location does not fall in a problematic flood zone, so no major offsite flow (Q) is expected from either the 10-year storm (Q10) or the 100-year storm (Q100). The County of Riverside Transportation Department Plan Check Policies and Guidelines state that 10-year frequency storm runoff will be contained below the tops of curbs on roadways and the 100- year frequency storm runoff will be contained within the street right-of-way.

Runoff from the Project site would naturally contain some contaminants typical of roadway such as sediment, silt, brake pad dust, particulates from vehicle exhaust, minute rubber particles from tire wear, etc. These materials will be removed naturally as Project runoff reaches natural bottom drainage channels downstream of the Project site, including Little San Gorgonio Creek and San Timoteo Creek. As indicated in the Project Preliminary Design Report, the Project will control area runoff and not result in any onsite (i.e., within the roadway) flooding.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-58

In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES under the Construction General Permit to ensure no temporary impacts associated with erosion of exposed soils during grading would occur. Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009-2009-DWQ (adopted on September 2, 2009 and effective on July 1, 2010), as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (effective February 14, 2011) and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ (effective on July 17, 2012). The permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater including the Project, as well as smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of the General Construction Permit.

The proposed drainage improvements will not change the overall direction of runoff from the Project site and area but will contain it safely in improved structures and convey it safely downstream. Therefore, the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts will be less than significant.

The Project would increase the amount of surface runoff as a result of additional pavement and hardscaped surfaces; however, proper sizing and design of the underground infiltration chamber would offset this increase with regard to flow management. The proposed underground infiltration chamber would be located on the southwestern portion of the Project site and would enable the stormwater flows entering the offsite system to be approximately the same as pre-construction flows according to the Project’s Hydrology Report.

The Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Any impacts will be less than significant.

The Project consists of extending 2nd Street from the western boundary of the Home Depot shopping center to Pennsylvania Avenue. The improvements include extending 2nd Street approximately 1,622 linear feet from the current terminus at the western boundary of First Street Self and RV Storage to Pennsylvania Avenue by adding four new travel lanes. This Project will also widen approximately 846 linear feet of 2nd Street from its current terminus to the western boundary of the Home Depot shopping center.

The stormwater drainage system would collect stormwater runoff originating on the Project site and convey it to a number of down drains and eventually reach the storm drain in Pennsylvania Avenue. The Project site’s drainage plan has been designed by a registered civil engineer to safely retain, detain, and/or convey expected stormwater runoff volumes. No streams or rivers were identified on the Project site and therefore, none would be altered. Implementation of BMPs typically required for road projects within the City would minimize potential erosion or siltation from the site. Compliance with water quality regulations and City requirements is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts will be less than significant.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-59

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site and surrounding area lie in flood Zone X which indicates a moderate to low-risk area and are non- special flood hazard areas which lie outside the 1% annual chance (100-year) floodplain, The Project site is located approximately 50 mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, no major surface water bodies are located within the City of Beaumont or immediately upstream of the Project site that could cause inundation by failure of an enclosed body of water, so the Project site would not be subject to inundation from seiches or tsunamis. Therefore, the Project will present a risk for release of pollutants due to Project inundation. No impacts will occur.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
As outlined in Thresholds 10.a and 10.b, the Project would not alter onsite drainage patterns and would comply with existing water quality regulations so it would comply with established groundwater quality control planning for the basin. The site is also not yet subject to a groundwater basin adjudication plan and no Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan has been prepared for the Project area as yet. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES under the Construction General Permit to ensure no temporary impacts associated with erosion of exposed soils during grading would occur. Consequently, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-60

11. Land Use and Planning

Sources: City of Beaumont Municipal Code; and City of Beaumont General Plan.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X

The Project site is located 1,000 feet south of the I-10 Freeway between Pennsylvania Avenue and Commerce Way. The Project site is bound by undeveloped land to the north, west, and southeast and developed commercial uses to the east and southeast. Streets have no General Plan Land Use designation or zoning but the designation and zoning of the land adjacent to the Project site is Community Commercial. . There are several large commercial land uses just east of the Project site including a Walmart, Home Depot, Kohl’s Department Store, and First Street Storage. Commercial land uses in the City of Beaumont may be characterized by retail activities and businesses that typically cater to the daily household needs of the area residents. The great majority of the businesses included in this category cater to patrons traveling on the City’s roadways and freeway traffic. Businesses included in this category provide a wide range of goods and services including gas, fast-food restaurants, and other transportation-related services.

The Project is consistent with and serves the surrounding land use designation and existing land uses. The Project will provide a new street and sidewalk to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to access this currently isolated area. Therefore, the Project would not divide an established community and no impacts will occur.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X
Streets have no General Plan Land Use designation zoning classification, although the surrounding land is designated General Commercial and there are existing large commercial uses to the east and southeast. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with land use or zoning designations/classifications or existing land uses. Since the Project is a new/extended road, it will not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impacts will occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-61

12. Mineral Resources

Sources: City of Beaumont General Plan; and USGS Minerals Resource Data System.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
X

According to the City of Beaumont General Plan, there are no known or identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance within the City of Beaumont. Additionally, the USGS Minerals Resource Data System did not identify the Project site as a location where a known mineral resource occurs. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

There are no mining activities being conducted on the Project site; no mining activities area planned for this site, and there are no current or future mining activities occurring in the vicinity of the Project site. No impacts will occur.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

X

According to the City of Beaumont General Plan, there are no known or identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance within the City of Beaumont. No impacts will occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-62

13. Noise

Characteristics of Noise

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.

Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location.

A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments.

Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense.

Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.

Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories; audible impacts, potentially audible, and changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dB. Audible impacts refers to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. An audible increase in noise levels generally refers to a change of 3.0 dB or greater since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments.

Potentially audible refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. Finally, changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dB are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant (typically equal or greater than 3 dB).

As noise spreads out from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6-dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise-sensitive receptor of concern. A long, closely spaced continuous line of vehicles along a roadway becomes a line source and produces a 3 dBA decrease in sound level for each doubling of distance. However, experimental evidence has shown that where sound from a highway propagates close to “soft” ground (e.g., plowed farmland, grass, crops, etc.), the most suitable drop-off rate to use is not 3 dBA but rather

4.5 dBA per distance doubling.

There are many ways to rate noise for various intervals, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the equivalent sound level (Leq) and community noise equivalent level (CNEL), or the day-night average level (Ldn) based on dBA.

Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5-dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-63

relaxation hours) and a 10-dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax for short-term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise.

Common sources of noise in urban environments include mobile sources, such as traffic, and stationary sources, such as mechanical equipment or construction operations. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on each construction site and, therefore, would change the noise levels as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Existing Noise Conditions

The proposed roadway Project is bounded by existing commercial uses to the southeast and vacant land uses to the north and southwest. The land immediately surrounding the proposed roadway (to the north and south) are designated for General Commercial in the City of Beaumont 2040 General Plan Land Use Designation Map and zoned for Community Commercial in the City of Beaumont Zoning Map.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential land uses located south of 1st Street approximately 550 feet south of the future centerline of proposed roadway. The City of Beaumont General Plan shows the Project site currently experiences noise levels that range from 65 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL. The nearest residential homes south of 1st Street (i.e., the closest sensitive receptors) currently experience noise levels ranging from 60 dBA to 65 dBA CNEL1.

As shown in the Noise Element of the 2040 General Plan, existing noise levels near the site are primarily influenced by the I-10 Freeway.

Noise Standards

General Plan. The City of Beaumont General Plan, Chapter 10: Noise Control, establishes noise standards to minimize the community’s exposure to excessive noise. CNEL noise standards are the common metric that are used by the State of California and the City of Beaumont for assessing noise/land use compatibility. The General Plan indicates the maximum outdoor noise levels (CNEL) in residential areas of the City if 65 dBA.

Municipal Code. The City of Beaumont Municipal Code (BMC) Noise Ordinance, Section 9.02 establishes City-wide standards regulating noise for residential zones, public places, and motor vehicles, while Section 9.02.100 states that a project shall not create loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-64

or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness. For purposes of this analysis, the BMC is mainly used to assess construction noise impacts from the Project. Whenever a construction site is within one-quarter of a mile of an occupied residence or residences, the BMC states that no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May. Exceptions to these standards shall be allowed only with the written consent of the building official. In addition, sound levels shall not at any time exceed 55 dB(A) for intervals of more than 15 minutes per hour as measured in the interior of the nearest occupied residence or school.

Characteristics of Groundborne Vibration

Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings.

Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish these vibration levels referenced in decibels from noise levels referenced in decibels, the unit is written as vibration in decibels (VdB).

In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. However, construction vibration impacts to building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). Project-related vibration impacts are expressed in terms of PPV.

Sources: 2nd Street Improvement Project Noise Impact Study, City of Beaumont, CA, prepared by RK Engineering, 10-18-2021 (NIS, Appendix H); 2nd Street Improvement Project Traffic Assessment, City of Beaumont, CA, prepared by RK Engineering, 10-18-2021 (TA, Appendix I); and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the Noise Impact Analysis Report, unless otherwise noted.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

X

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-65

Construction Noise Impacts

A significant impact would occur if construction activity nose levels resulted in an exceedance of the City’s applicable noise ordinance standards. The City’s noise control ordinance establishes that construction activities are exempt from the above maximum residential noise protection levels provided that they occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Outside of these hours, construction activities are permitted to generate noise levels that exceed the above-mentioned maximum residential noise levels, but never in excess of 55 dBA for intervals of more than 15 minutes per hour as measured in the interior of the nearest occupied residence.

In addition, because the Project site is within one-quarter of a mile of an occupied residence, construction is prohibited between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September, and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the Project. First, construction personnel commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the Project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access road leading to the Project site.

Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, the effect on longer-term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the Project site would be less than significant.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the Project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment such as pile drivers are not expected to be used during construction of the Project.

The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the loudest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment.

Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment, such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Construction of the Project is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, water trucks, haul trucks, and pickup trucks. the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from this equipment, while each bulldozer would generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by graders is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.

A characteristic of sound is that each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases a

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-66

sound level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq.

The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Project site are the single-family residential uses located approximately 550 feet south of the Project site across 1st Street. Taking into account the existing distance, construction noise levels at the could range up to approximately 65 dBA Lmax, with a relative worst-case hourly average of 70 dBA Leq at the closest receptors.

Based on the U.S. EPA’s Protective Noise Levels, with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction in accordance with California building code requirements for residential developments would provide 25 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed. Therefore, interior noise levels at the closest noise-sensitive receptor ranging up to 40 dBA Leq (65 dBA–25 dBA = 40 dBA). Therefore, construction activities with worst-case hourly average noise levels would not exceed the City’s interior noise threshold of 55 dBA as measured at the nearest residential receptor.

This analyzes the potential impacts from the reasonable worst-case loudest phase of construction, the site preparation phase. All other phases would result in lower construction noise levels. Therefore, noise impacts from all other phases of construction would be less than what is analyzed above.

Although anticipated construction noise levels are not expected to exceed City standards, noise producing construction activities will be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September, or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May. Restricting construction activities to these stated time-periods will ensure that construction noise would not result in sleep disturbances at nearby off-site sensitive receptors or in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Adhering to the BMC construction hour limits is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, the potential short-term construction noise impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site would be reduced to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.

Operational Noise Impacts

A significant impact would occur if persons working or visiting at the Project site would be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City’s “maximum acceptable” land use compatibility threshold of 65 dBA CNEL for residential land uses. The Project may incrementally increase noise levels in the surrounding area by connecting 2nd Street to Pennsylvania Avenue to the west and substantially increasing through traffic on this planned roadway. The City’s 2040 General Plan classifies 2nd Street as a Major Highway (Raised Median), but the Project is only proposing to build the roadway to temporarily meet the Secondary Streets classification. 2nd Street will eventually be expanded to its full width when adjacent vacant land is developed – at that point the roadway will be consistent with the City’s General Plan Roadway Classification Map.

Projected traffic noise from vehicular traffic along the proposed 2nd Street extension was

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-67

modeled using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) which arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the key input parameters. The future roadway was modeled using secondary road standards with four travel lanes, a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, and worst case traffic levels of 25,000 average daily traffic (ADT). The projected future traffic noise levels adjacent to the Project site were analyzed to determine compliance with the City’s noise and land use compatibility standards. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNEL values. Table 13-1, Future Traffic Noise Levels, shows the modeled future traffic related CNEL noise levels calculated at 550 feet from the centerline of roadway segments adjacent to the site. The distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also shown. It should be noted the traffic noise levels do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may reduce traffic noise levels. The roadway noise levels also provide a baseline of the future estimated traffic noise levels.

Table 13-1
Future Traffic Noise Levels

Roadway1

Segment

CNEL
at 550ft.
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)2
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
2nd Street Pennsylvania Ave. to
Home Depot
Shopping Center

57.6 31

99 314

992
1 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway. 2 Refer to NIS Appendix B for estimated noise level calculations.

The nearest sensitive receptors (residential uses south of 1st Street) are present at approximately 550 feet south of the centerline of the proposed roadway extension. Roadway noise levels from proposed roadway extension are expected to be approximately 57.6 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential property. Based on this, no sensitive noise receptors are present within the 60 dBA contour of the Project.

Based on this analysis, the Project will not significantly increase baseline future noise levels at the residential homes south of 1st Street. As shown on the Future Noise Contours map in the City’s General Plan, areas immediately south of 1st Street are expected experience noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL2. Hence, the contribution of Project noise would not be perceptible as it would result in less than 1 dBA change in future conditions. Therefore, the incremental change in noise as a result of the Project is less than significant at the nearest sensitive noise receptors.

Based on the analysis above, the Project will not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies with adherence to City noise standards as regulatory compliance. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-68

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
X

Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings.

Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment.

The City of Beaumont has not adopted a provision addressing the impacts of groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) vibration impact criteria are utilized. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact assessment in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document. A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the Project site or in the Project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of levels established by the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria. Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the small vibratory rollers that are anticipated to be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site construction footprint are the residential uses located 550 feet south of the Project site across 1st Street. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would be less than 0.005 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. These anticipated levels are well below the FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings of non-engineered timber and masonry. Therefore, Project-related impacts from groundborne vibration on off-site receptors would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Implementation of the Project would involve rubber-wheeled vehicles of various sizes traveling on smooth asphalt surfaces (the new roadway). The Project does not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the Project vicinity.

In addition, there are no existing significant permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the Project vicinity to which the Project would be exposed. Therefore, Project operational groundborne vibration level impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-69

14. Population and Housing
Sources: State of California Department of Finance; and Southern California Association of Governments Final 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Demographics & Growth Forecast.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

The Project would develop road extensions and related improvements for East 2nd Street in the City of Beaumont. The Project does not propose the construction of new housing; however, it does propose improvements to access to existing and future commercial business that may directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area. According to the Department of Finance population estimates, the City of Beaumont had a population of 48,237 as of January 1, 2018. The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Adopted Growth Forecast projects an estimated population of 80,600 by the year 2040. According to the SCAG RTP/SCS, Beaumont had an employment base of 5,900 in 2012 and is projected to increase to 18,000 by the year 2040. The increases in population as a result of the Project are insignificant as they are within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG for the City of Beaumont General Plan.

No new expanded infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate additional unplanned growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure (i.e., roads, water, sewer, electricity, etc.).

Therefore, the Project will not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Any impacts will be less than significant.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X

Currently, there are no homes located within the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-70

15. Public Services
Sources: City of Beaumont General Plan; Beaumont Unified School District web site; and Google Maps.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection X
Police Protection X
Schools X
Parks X
Other Public Facilities X

Fire Protection

The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the Project site and the entire City of Beaumont. The nearest fire stations to the Project site are Fire Station 1 located at 628 Maple Avenue, approximately .6 miles northwest of the Project site, and Fire Station 20 located at 1550 East 6th Street, approximately .6 miles northeast of the Project site.

The Project would develop road improvements and ancillary activities currently undeveloped land, which will not add to the demand on fire protection services but supplement its accessibility. The Project will be required to implement all applicable California Fire Code Standards. The Project’s design and construction plans would be reviewed by City of Beaumont and Fire officials to ensure fire codes are met and that adequate fire protection services would be available to meet the project’s needs. There will be no impact.

Police Protection

The Beaumont Police Department located at 660 Orange Avenue, approximately .6 miles northwest of the Project site, provides police services for the entire City of Beaumont. According to the City of Beaumont General Plan, the Beaumont Police Department enlists the service of 25 sworn officers and seven non-sworn personnel.

The Project would develop road improvements and ancillary activities currently undeveloped

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-71

land, which will not add to the demand on police services but supplement its accessibility.

There will be no impact.

Schools

The City of Beaumont Unified School District provides educational services to the City of Beaumont planning area, including a portion of Banning, Calimesa, and the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley. The District currently operated six elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. The nearest schools to the Project site are Sundance Elementary School, Laura May Stewart School, and Glenview High School; all located within approximately 2 miles from the Project site.

The Project is located within the boundaries of the Beaumont Unified School District (BUSD).

Because the Project is a road improvement project, it is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth. There will be no impact.

Parks

According to the City of Beaumont General Plan, there are approximately 22 acres of land designated for park and recreational use within the City of Beaumont planning area. The City of Beaumont General Plan Resource Management Element Policy 22 seeks to expand community and regional parks within the City of Beaumont planning area.

The Project would not involve residential uses and will not cause a substantial increase in the population of the Project region. The Project consists of road improvements and ancillary activities in a future commercial area that may cause an increase in employment, thereby potentially resulting an indirect increase in demand or use of existing parks or recreational facilities, as employment may have an effect on relocation/population growth in the area from housing. The increases in population as a result of the Project are insignificant as they are within the growth assumptions for the City of Beaumont General Plan. Any impacts will be less than significant.

Other Public Facilities

The Project consists of road improvements and ancillary activities in a future commercial area that may cause an increase in employment, thereby potentially resulting an indirect increase in demand or use of existing government and community services, as employment may have an effect on relocation/population growth in the area from housing. The increases in population as a result of the Project are insignificant as they are within the growth assumptions for the City of Beaumont General Plan. Any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-72

16. Recreational
Sources: City of Beaumont General Plan; Project Plans/Materials (Appendix J).

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

The Project site is located within vacant properties already dedicated for road purposes. The Project would not involve residential uses and will not cause a substantial increase in the population of the Project region. The Project consists of road improvements and ancillary activities within a future commercial area. The Project does not service any recreation areas, and thus there will be no increase in the use of existing parks. No impacts would occur.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

X

The Project consists of road improvements and ancillary activities and would not include recreational facilities. As such, the Project will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts will occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-73

17. Transportation
Sources: 2nd Street Improvement Project Traffic Assessment, City of Beaumont, CA, prepared by RK Engineering, 10-18-2021 (TA, Appendix I); and City of Beaumont General Plan.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X

Although the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodology is now applied in evaluating potential transportation impacts of a project, the City’s General Plan identifies standards for maintaining an adequate level of service (LOS) for City streets and intersections. To evaluate Project consistency with the General Plan Mobility Element, a Traffic Assessment (TA) was prepared for the Project.

As previously stated, to be consistent with the 2020 CEQA Guidelines, LOS analysis is not required for purposes of this Initial Study impact analysis. However, the qualitative LOS and VMT analyses provided in the TA will be considered by the City’s decision-makers when making General Plan consistency findings for the Project.

The Project consists of extending 2nd Street from the western boundary of the Home Depot shopping center to Pennsylvania Avenue. The improvements include extending 2nd Street approximately 1,622 linear feet from the current terminus at the western boundary of First Street Self and RV Storage to Pennsylvania Avenue by adding four new travel lanes. This Project will also widen approximately 846 linear feet of 2nd Street from its current terminus to the western boundary of the Home Depot shopping center. The extension of 2nd Street is consistent with the City’s General Plan Roadway Classification Map. However, the General Plan classifies 2nd Street as a Major Highway (Raised Median), but the Project is only proposing to build the roadway to temporarily meet the Secondary Streets classification at this time.

Since the proposed Project is not a land use development or public facility that generates and/or attracts new vehicle trips by creating a new destination or place of activity, the Project is generally not expected to result in generation of new vehicle trips. However, the roadway extension can be expected to result in a shift in existing traffic volumes along the roadways that parallel this new extension and other connecting major roadways including:

• Ramsey Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Highland Springs Avenue; • 2nd Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Highland Springs Avenue; • 1st Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Highland Springs Avenue; • Pennsylvania Avenue between Ramsey Street and 1st Street; and • Highland Springs Avenue between Ramsey Street and 1st Street.

Under current conditions, vehicles accessing the Home Depot and other commercial land uses in the area from the west cannot directly access the existing land uses via Pennsylvania Avenue.

Instead, vehicles from the west are required to travel further east towards South Highland Springs Avenue via one of the nearby east-west roadways such as Ramsey Street, I-10 Freeway, or 1st

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-74

Street. These vehicles travel through one or more of the following intersections, creating additional traffic volume that would otherwise not be present at these intersections if direct access from the west was available via Pennsylvania Avenue:

• South Highland Springs Avenue / Ramsey Street;
• South Highland Springs Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps; • South Highland Springs Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps; and • South Highland Springs Avenue / 1st Street.

Constructing the 2nd Street extension would eliminate this condition and allow vehicles from the west to directly access the Home Depot and other commercial sites from Pennsylvania Avenue without having to drive all the way east to South Highland Springs Avenue and create the current unnecessary traffic patterns and increased volumes. Providing the 2nd Street connection would alleviate existing traffic congestion conditions at South Highland Springs Avenue, 6th Street, I-10 Freeway, 1st Street and the intersections listed above which would result in improved traffic operations at these locations and the overall roadway network.

Since the Project is expected to improve the overall level of service and operation of the major intersections in the Project area, a qualitative evaluation of Project traffic impacts relative to the General Plan is not necessary for CEQA purposes (see Threshold 17.b for a discussion of VMT traffic impacts per recent changes in the CEQA Guidelines).

Transit. Bus service in the Pass Area of western Riverside County is provided by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). RTA Route 31 currently provides bus transit services to the Project area.

The closest bus stops are located on 2nd Street and Commerce Way approximately 1,00 feet east of the site on 2nd Street. The route turns south at Commerce Way and then travels west along 1st Street. The route goes west along SR-60 to the City of Moreno Valley and south along Highway 79 and Gilman Springs Road to the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. RTA bus routes are subject to change when ridership conditions warrant.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails. The Project involves extending 2nd Street west to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Project site is currently vacant but there are Class II bike lanes along both side of 2nd Avenue - on the north side as far west as the Home Depot center and on the south side as far west as the 1st Street Self Storage facility. The proposed Project will complete the bike lane on the south side of 2nd Street west to Pennsylvania Avenue. This Project will improve 2nd Street to Secondary Street standards, but the roadway will eventually be improved to Major Highway standards (including a Class II bike lane on the north side of the street) when the adjacent vacant lands are developed.

At present the Project site is vacant but there are sidewalks along both side of 2nd Avenue - on the north side as far west as the Home Depot center and on the south side as far west as the 1st Street Self Storage facility. The proposed Project will complete sidewalks on the south side of 2nd Street west to Pennsylvania Avenue. This Project will improve 2nd Street to Secondary Street standards, but the roadway will eventually be improved to Major Highway standards (with a full sidewalk on the north side of the street) when the adjacent vacant lands are developed.

Based on this information, the Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-75

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X

In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which now identify VMT as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impact under CEQA (Section 15064.3). Effective July 1, 2020, the previous CEQA metric of LOS, typically measured in terms of automobile delay, roadway capacity and congestion, will no longer constitute a significant environmental impact. The Project TA also included a separate analysis of VMT impacts of the Project.

On June 16, 2020, the City of Beaumont Council has discussed the City’s VMT criteria and thresholds for compliance with the new CEQA requirements regarding VMT. Recommendations were provided by staff to the Council for adaptation of appropriate guidelines and thresholds during that hearing. The proposed Project is not a land use development or public facility that generates and/or attracts new vehicle trips by creating a new destination or place of activity, so the Project will not result in generation of new vehicle trips and new travel miles associated with new trips.

The City’s 2040 General Plan classifies 2nd Street as a Major Highway (Raised Median), but the Project is only proposing to build the roadway to temporarily meet the Secondary Streets classification. When the vacant land adjacent to the site is eventually developed, the street will be widened and improved to meet the Major Highway cross section. When the road is fully improved it will be consistent with the City’s General Plan Roadway Classification Map.

The proposed roadway extension will shift existing traffic volumes along the roadways that parallel this new extension and other connecting major roadways. Under current conditions, vehicles accessing the Home Depot and other commercial land uses in the area from the west cannot directly access these land uses via Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead, the vehicles are required to travel further east towards South Highland Springs Avenue via one of the nearby east-west roadways such as Ramsey Street, I-10 Freeway, or 1st Street. These vehicles will need to travel through one or more of the following intersections, creating additional traffic volume that would otherwise not be present at these intersections if a direct access was available via Pennsylvania Avenue:

• South Highland Springs Avenue / Ramsey Street;
• South Highland Springs Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps; • South Highland Springs Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps; and • South Highland Springs Avenue / 1st Street.

Constructing the 2nd Street extension would eliminate this condition and allow vehicles from the west to directly access the Home Depot and other commercial sites from Pennsylvania Avenue, without having to drive all the way east to South Highland Springs Avenue and create the current unnecessary traffic patterns and increased volumes. Therefore, providing the 2nd Street connection will help incrementally reduce current driving distances and VMT by providing a more direct access route for vehicles accessing Home Depot and the nearby commercial uses from the west.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-76

Due to the nature of the Project, it will have less than significant VMT impacts, and no further analysis is required (nor is any mitigation required).

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?

X

The proposed Project is the extension and widening of 2nd Avenue which has a linear design from its current terminus at the 1st Street Self Storage facility west to Pennsylvania Avenue. The new roadway has no design features that would increase traffic hazards in the area and in fact will help alleviate congestion on 1st Street and other nearby streets. The Project site is currently vacant and some of the adjacent land is developed while other parcels are vacant. The surrounding area is planned for Community Commercial uses in the City’s 2040 General Plan. The proposed roadway will be built to Secondary Street standards at present but will eventually be built to Major Highway (raised median) standards based on the General Plan Mobility Element. There would be no conflicts with incompatible uses under the proposed Project or under final buildout conditions.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not create any roadways or road improvements that could increase hazards to a circulation system design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). There will be no impacts, and the Project will have a beneficial effect in this regard.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

The proposed Project is the extension and widening of 2nd Avenue which has a linear design from its current terminus at the 1st Street Self Storage facility west to Pennsylvania Avenue. When complete, the Project will actually enhance or facilitate emergency access and access to nearby uses and the surrounding area in general, especially during times of congestion on other local roadways. Therefore, no impacts will occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-77

18. Tribal Cultural Resources

According to the Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey prepared for the Project, the San Gorgonio Pass area has long been part of the traditional homeland of the Cahuilla Indians, a Takic-speaking people who were primarily hunters and gatherers prior to European contact. One of the three subgroups of the Cahuilla, the Pass Cahuilla, was so named by anthropologists because of their roots in the San Gorgonio Pass area. Cahuilla territory was generally bounded on the east by the Orocopia Mountains; on the north by the San Bernardino Mountains, on the west by the Santa Ana River, the San Jacinto Plain, and the eastern slope of the Palomar Mountains; and on the south by Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains.

Cahuilla political, economic, and religious autonomy was maintained until 1877, when the United States government began to establish Indian reservations in the region. Protestant missionaries came into the area to convert and “civilize” the Native Americans. During this era, traditional cultural practices, such as cremation of the dead, were prohibited. Today, the Cahuilla reside on a number of reservations in southern California, located from Banning in the north to Warner Springs in the south and from Hemet in the west to Thermal in the east.

Assembly Bill 52
Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.

Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, a TCR

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-78

may also require additional consideration as a historical resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies provide tribes that requested notification an opportunity to consult at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is used to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

Sources: Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Second Street Improvement Project, prepared by CRMTECH 10-10-2021 (Phase I H/ARS, Appendix D); City’s AB52 Consultation Efforts with Tribes; and Assembly Bill 52.

Would the Project? Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American Tribe.

X

The H/ARS was prepared for the Project site on October 21, 2021 by CRM Tech to identify cultural resources that could be affected by the Project. A cultural resources record search was conducted at the EIC and a search of Sacred Lands File of the NAHC was requested.

A search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) indicated no information regarding Sacred Lands or other cultural resources in the area. In addition to the search of the Sacred Lands File, the NAHC identified 14 Native American groups with historical and traditional ties to the Project site.

Sources consulted to identify historic properties included the current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmark (CHL), and California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI). The Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) and archival maps were also reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented cultural resources. The record search included a 1/2-mile buffer around the perimeter of the Project area. The results of the combined record searches for the Project indicate that at least 11 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within a 1/2-mile radius of the

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-79

Project. Of those, one investigation included the entire Project area.

As a result of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, eight historical/archeological sites have been recorded within the half-mile radius. All of the sites dated to the historical period, and no prehistoric (i.e., Native American) archaeological resources have been identified in the project vicinity. The eight known sights were primarily buildings and linear features such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, Sixth Street, and the power transmission line along First Street. None of these sites were found in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus they require no further consideration during this study.

On July 1, 2021, following the records search at the EIC, a CRM Tech archaeologist visited the site to conduct an intensive pedestrian survey. Because of extensive grading of the property over the years, no native terrain or vegetation was present on the property, and no cultural resources were observed during the site survey.

In accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Native American Consultation efforts were led by the City of Beaumont as the lead agency. The City submitted notification letters to 23 Native American tribal governments or designated tribal representatives on March 30-31, 2022. Responses were received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on April 29, 2022, and again on June 3, 2022, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians on May 15, 2022, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on May 9, 2022.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested consultation and to review mitigation measures. The City provided the mitigation measures to the Tribe for review but have not received a response back to date.

On May 15,2022 the Morongo Band of Mission Indians requested consultation along with project information. They will receive a copy of the Phase I H/ARS when the CEQA document is circulated for public review.

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) declined consultation because the project is outside of Serrano ancestral territory. They noted that are aware that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural affiliation to the area; however, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians can only speak for itself. The Tribe indicated it has no objection if the agency, developer, and/or archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes in addition to SMBMI or if the Lead Agency wishes to revise the conditions to recognize additional tribes.

The City has included the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the list of recipients to receive a copy of this Initial Study including all Appendices. Consultation is considered on-going.

Per an email form the Tribe on 8-26-22, the proposed Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-4 will satisfy the consultation requests of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

Pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), each tribal government or representative was given 30 days upon receipt of the AB 52 notification letter to provide a request for consultation on the Project. The 30- day request period for consultation expired on April 30, 2022. Tribal consultation between the City of Beaumont and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians is ongoing. The City of Beaumont, as lead agency, is fulfilling its obligations under AB 52 to engage in tribal consultation with all other tribal governments.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-80

As previously discussed, because of extensive grading of the property over the years, no native terrain or vegetation is present on the property, and no cultural resources were observed during the site visit.

The archaeological sensitivity of the Project site is believed to be low; however, there always remains a possibility that unrecorded cultural resources are present beneath the ground surface, and that such resources may be exposed during project construction. If previously unrecorded historical resources are encountered during construction that could potentially be affected, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Lastly, based on the records search from EIC, no formal cemeteries are located in or near the Project site and no human remains have been reported in the Project vicinity. Most Native American human remains are found in prehistoric archaeological sites. No prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Project site. Therefore, the Project as little potential to disturb human remains. If potential human remains are encountered the Project would comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Assembly Bill 2641 with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

MM-CUL-1 Inadvertent Cultural Resources Finds: For adequate coverage and the protection of possibly significant buried resources and tribal cultural resources, a qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor provided by the consulting tribes shall be retained by the applicant to monitor all ground-disturbing construction activities, included but not limited to site preparation, grading and excavation. The applicant, archaeologist and consulting tribes will agree on a monitoring schedule based on the necessary days of ground-disturbance. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact Consulting Tribe(s) and shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g., avoidance, preservation, return of artifacts to tribe, etc.). If avoidance is not possible, an avoidance plan will be prepared and implemented based on consultation between the archaeologist and tribes. If resources are found to be significant historical resources under CEQA then CUL 2 and/or CUL-3 shall apply. For the purposes of these measures, a Consulting Tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52.

MM-CUL-2 Treatment and Disposition of Non-Tribal Cultural Resources: If significant resources are identified that are not identified by the qualified archaeologist and consulting tribe(s) as a Tribal Cultural Resources, and the resources is of scientific/historical value, recovered materials shall be deposited in a federal or state recognized curation facility. The curation of the recovered materials shall be identified and funded by the Applicant and approved by the City. The site record for the resource shall be updated to include the final disposition of the recovered materials and will be

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-81

submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC).

MM-CUL-3 Treatment and Disposition of Tribal Cultural Resources: In the event that Native American tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during grading for this project. The following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Documentation: In conjunction with the qualified archaeologist, the tribal cultural resource shall be documented to the extent deemed appropriate by the consulting tribe(s) on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523-series forms. The final disposition of the materials shall also be included on the site form.

2. Temporary Curation and Storage: During construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location mutually agreed to by the City, Project Archaeologist, and consulting tribes. The removal of any artifacts from the Project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the process; and

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City Planning Department with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed; b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other
archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation:
c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center by default; and d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project Archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, Eastern Information Center and interested tribes.

MM-CUL-4 Human Remains: If human remains are encountered, California Health and

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-82

Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendants(s)" for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the agreement described in MM CUL-3. If the MLD fails to make a recommendation regarding the treatment or the recommendation is not feasible per the property owner, then the remains shall be reburied with appropriate dignity and respect on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. In the event the MLD fails to make a recommendation - ESA should be set up to prevent further disturbance. The ESA should not indicate that remains are buried there. This should be conducted in coordination with the NAM/D63.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-83

18. Utilities and Service Systems

Sources: BCVWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP); BCVWD Website; BCVWD 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan; and Lambs Canyon Sanitary Landfill Website.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, or
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

X

Water Service

The Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) provides the City of Beaumont, including the Project site, with water services. In 2020, the BCVWD provided water to approximately 59,000 people within the City of Beaumont and the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley.

The water provided by the BCVWD is primarily groundwater supplemented by imported water from the State Water Project purchased from the San Gorgonio Water Agency.

The BCVWD provides the City of Beaumont, including the Project site, with water services. The BCVWD 2020 UWMP was prepared utilizing the General Plan Land Use designation on the Project site of Community Commercial. The Project is consistent with the General Plan. The 2020 UWMP concluded that there is adequate current and future water supply to accommodate future growth, which includes the Project.

Standard water connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the Project. Payment of these fees are standard conditions and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.

Implementation of the Project will not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion or relocation of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts are considered less than significant.

Wastewater

The City of Beaumont processes its wastewater and sewage at its city-owned Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (BWTP), a tertiary facility. The City of Beaumont contracts Utility Partners LLC, to operate the facility for the City of Beaumont. This facility currently receives and treats domestic and commercial industrial wastewater from the City of Beaumont and portions of the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley.

The Project would not directly generate wastewater associated with the regular use of the road improvements.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-84

New development in the City is required to install wastewater infrastructure concurrent with Project development. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is the applicable RWQCB.

Based on these expansion plans and timing of these plans, it is not anticipated that Project will result in the BWTP exceeding its design capacity.

Standard wastewater/sewer connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the Project. Payment of these fees are standard conditions and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.

The Project would not require or result in construction, expansion, or relocation of wastewater facilities that could result in a significant environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater/Drainage

Potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of the Project if storm water runoff was increased to a level that would require construction of new storm drainage facilities. As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section (Section 10), the Project will generate increased runoff from the site.

The site is composed of moderately sloping valley terrain that falls generally southwest.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project lies in Zone X; this zone indicates that the project lies in a moderate to low-risk area and are non-special flood hazard areas. These areas lie outside the 1% annual chance flood plain, flood insurance is not required but can be obtained at a reduced cost for property owners and renters.

The elevations across the site vary from 2,570 to 2,585 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along the proposed road extension and from 2,570 to 2,600 feet above mean sea level (MSL) across the entire site. All surface runoff from the site drains as sheet flow to the existing storm drain structures. Since most of the existing location is covered by dirt, this means that most of the storm water is most likely infiltrated through the soil.

The proposed grading design for the site matches the flow regime of the existing drainage conditions. Four new reinforced concrete pipe culverts will be installed to handle the sites drainage requirements due to the increase of impervious materials and due to the existing seasonal creeks on-site.

Therefore, the Project will not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and best management practices BMP’s.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-85

Electricity

Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to customers within a 50,000- square mile area covering nearly 14 million people in 11 counties in the southern half of California, including western Riverside County and the City of Beaumont. It provides electricity to users via 16 utility interconnections and nearly 5,000 different transmission and distribution circuits. As of 2009 (the most recent year data is available from the CEC), SCE reported a total energy consumption of approximately 85,850 GWh, with an additional 4,531 GWh “self- generated” consumption within the SCE’s planning area. SCE reports that it is the nation’s largest purchaser of renewable energy, buying and delivering approximately 13.6 million MWh in 2009.

There is no electricity connection currently serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped condition. Additionally, no facilities demanding electricity (i.e., streetlights) are part of this Project. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in construction, expansion, or relocation of electric power facilities that could result in a significant environmental effect. There will be no impacts to electricity services or demand as a result of this Project.

Natural Gas

The Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) is the primary provider of natural gas to the region of Southern California, inclusive of the City of Beaumont. SoCal Gas is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE), a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in San Diego. The SoCal gas service territory encompasses approximately 24,000 square miles in diverse terrain throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border. As the nation's largest natural gas distribution utility, SoCal Gas reports delivering clean, safe and reliable energy to 21.8 million consumers through 5.9 million meters in more than 500 communities, inclusive of development projects within the City of Beaumont.

There is no natural gas connection currently in place serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped condition. Additionally, no facilities demanding natural gas are part of this project.

Therefore, the Project would not require or result in construction, expansion, or relocation of natural gas facilities that could result in a significant environmental effect. There will be no impacts to electricity services or demand as a result of this Project

Telecommunications

Telephone service to the Project site and the greater City of Beaumont is provided by Verizon.

Verizon is a private company that provides connection to the communication system on an as needed basis. No expansion of facilities will be necessary to connect the Project to the communication system. There will be no impacts to electricity services or demand as a result of this Project

In summary, the Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts will be less than significant.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-86

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?

X

The BCVWD provides the City of Beaumont, including the Project site, with water services. The BCVWD 2020 UWMP was prepared utilizing the General Plan Land Use designation on the Project site of Community Commercial. The 2020 UWMP analyzes water supplies during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The Project is consistent with the General Plan. The 2020 UWMP concluded that there is adequate current and future water supply to accommodate future growth, which includes the Project.

The Project, extension of the existing East 2nd Street and related improvements, does not require any additional demand for water. Therefore, there will be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources during projected future normal, dry and multiple dry year scenarios. There will be no impact to water supplies.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

X

The Project, extension of the existing East 2nd Street and related improvements, does not require any additional demand for wastewater services. Therefore, there will be no impact to the wastewater service provider.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure? X

The City of Beaumont solid waste and refuse services are provided on a contract basis by Waste Management, Inc. Waste Management, Inc. provides services for the disposal of trash, recyclables, and green waste. There are no collection, processing, or disposal facilities within the City. As set forth in the City’s 2006 General Plan Update EIR, commercial and residential municipal solid waste from the City of Beaumont is delivered via private haulers and residents to the Lamb Canyon Landfill, located just south of the City.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-87

The Lamb Canyon Landfill is a municipal solid waste facility owned and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources. It is located approximately 4½ miles south of the Project site in the unincorporated Badlands/Lamb Canyon area of Riverside County, south of Interstate 10 (I-10) and the City of Beaumont, and north of the City of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road (State Route 79).

The Project may generate some waste during construction. Construction related waste is anticipated to be items such as construction debris.

The Project, extension of the existing East 2nd Street and related improvements, does not generate solid waste after it is fully constructed. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
e) Negatively impact the provision of solid waste
services or impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X

The Project would produce solid waste associated with the site preparation and construction stages of the Project. All of these stages would implement required solid waste reduction measures to reduce the amount of waste generated, encourage reuse and/or recycling of materials to the greatest extent feasible, utilize materials made of post-consumer materials where possible. Furthermore, the City of Beaumont General Plan 2006 EIR concluded compliance with the City’s adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element target waste reduction and recycling goals and proper management and disposal of waste systems within the County would not result in an exceedance of permitted landfill capacities pursuant to implementation of the City’s General Plan Update, nor would the build-out as projected impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals. As the Project is consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations, the Project development impact to the solid waste infrastructure has been accounted for in the City’s General Plan EIR, and no additional impact will occur.

Therefore, the Project would not negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts will be less than significant.

Would the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
f) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X

Waste generated by the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations (including Municipal Code Chapter 8.12, Mandatory Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) related to solid waste. Chapter 8.12 of the City of Beaumont’s Municipal Code, codifies the findings made by the City Council, set forth in Section 8.12.010, A through E, that a considerable volume and variety of solid waste are being generated in the City and that it is necessary to carefully control the collection and disposal of

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-88

solid waste so that the reductions required to be made by Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq. (AB 939) can be planned for and accurately measured. In light of the findings, the City Council established a program of mandatory solid waste collection in the City in order to protect the health and welfare of the City’s residents and to comply with all applicable federal, state, and regional statutes and regulations. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-89

19. Wildfire
Environmental Setting

The Project is located on 2nd Street from Pennsylvania Avenue east approximately 1,200 feet to existing improvements The site is bounded by commercial uses on the east end and to southeast and by vacant land on the north, west, and southwest.

Sources: City of Beaumont General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and Map My County.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X

According to Map My County, the Project site is not located within a “Fire Hazard Zone” or a “Fire Responsibility Area.” As a new/expanded street, the Project would neither physically interfere with nor impair implementation of any existing emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (it would, in fact, enhance both). Review of the City of Beaumont’s General Plan EIR Figure 4.8-1 Evacuation Routes shows Interstate 10 and Pennsylvania Avenue as the designated evacuation routes in the vicinity of the Project site, and the Project will provide direct access to Pennsylvania Avenue to the west for local uses/users that currently have only South Highland Springs Avenue to the east for access. The proposed Project would provide expanded access for this rea consistent with City standards to ensure a coordinated and effective planned response by the City Police and Fire Departments to extraordinary emergency situations and disasters and also to ensure the provision of adequate vehicular access. Impacts will be less than significant.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

X

As stated in Threshold 20.a, the Project is not located within a “Fire Hazard Zone” or a “Fire Responsibility Area.” The Project Site is a road located in a generally flat and developed/developing area in which wildfire fuels are generally maintained. The closest hillside areas with native vegetation that represent an increased risk from wildfires is one mile south and southwest of the Project site. The Project will actually incrementally reduce the potential for wildfire risks to this area by enhancing access for emergency vehicles and eliminating vacant land that could support vegetation susceptible to wildfires. Therefore, the Project will reduce the

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-90

risk of wildfire and Project impacts will be less than significant.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

X

As stated in Threshold 20.a, the Project is not located within a “Fire Hazard Zone” or a “Fire Responsibility Area.” The Project is a street and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impacts will occur.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

X

As stated in Threshold 20.a, the Project is not located within a “Fire Hazard Zone” or a “Fire Responsibility Area.” Wildfire risk to the proposed street is minimal due to its improved condition and use of non-flammable materials (i.e., asphalt and concrete). The site also has a flat topography, and the surrounding area has limited fuels to support wildfires. Therefore, given this limited risk of wildfire, it is unlikely that the Project would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-91

20. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Does the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?

X

The Project has the potential to adversely affect biological and cultural resources as discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of this Initial Study. With the adoption and implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5 and MM-CUL-1, potential impacts to biological and historical resources would be less than significant.

Does the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?

X

As discussed in this Initial Study in Sections 1 through 20 and summarized in the response to 21.a, above, the Project would not result in any cumulative impacts that would be significant after implementation of Project level Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, and MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3, regulatory compliance, and adherence to standard conditions. With the mitigation, regulatory compliance, and standard conditions listed in this Initial Study, any impacts from the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Does the Project?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact
c) Have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-92

As discussed throughout this Initial Study, all impacts that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings can be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4, regulatory compliance, and adherence to standard conditions. As such, direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation, regulatory compliance, and adherence to standard conditions.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project

SECTION 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Lead Agency:

• City of Beaumont – Christina Taylor, Community Development Director CEQA Consultant:

• Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc.

Technical Studies and Project Development:

• Cozad and Fox, Inc.
• CRMTECH
• RK Engineering
• Searl Biological Services
• Sladden Engineering

List of Preparers 5-1

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Bibliography 6-1

SECTION 6.0 SOURCES
BCVWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
https://bcvwd.org/document-category/urban-water-management-plan/ BCVWD 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
https://bcvwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2020_DRAFT_WSCP.pdf BCVWD Website
https://bcvwd.org
Beaumont Unified School District (BUSD)
http://www.beaumont-ca.schoolloop.com/schools
California Building Code
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx
City of Beaumont General Plan Documents
http://beaumontca.gov/index.aspx?NID=121
California Code of Regulations
https://oal.ca.gov/publications/ccr/
California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/
California Energy Commission
https://www.energy.ca.gov/
California Health and Safety Code
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/
California Scenic Highway Mapping System
http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html City of Beaumont Climate Action Plan
http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27815
City of Beaumont Energy Action Plan
http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27816
City of Beaumont Municipal Code
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.03ZOMAZODI_

17.03.090COCOZOCCZO
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual- report- 0123
FEMA FIRM map for Beaumont
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=beaumont%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
Bibliography 6-2

Google Maps
www.google.com/maps
Lambs Canyon Sanitary Landfill
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/
Map My County
https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=MMC_Public Public Resources Code
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/
Southern California Association of Governments Final 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Demographics & Growth Forecast
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf State of California Department of Finance
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ USGS Minerals Resource Data System
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/map-us.html#search-results .

UC Davis online soil survey for California
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/
Web Soils Survey Website
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Websites accessed between September 2021 and February 2022

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2nd Street Improvement Project
List of Appendices 7-1

SECTION 7.0 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices are included electronically.

Appendix A – City of Beaumont’s 2nd Street Improvement Project Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Cozad and Fox, Inc., 1-20-2021

Appendix B – 2nd Street Improvement Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, 1-4-2022
Appendix C1 – Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, City of Beaumont, 2nd Street Improvements, prepared by Searl Biological Services, 9-26-2022

Appendix C2 – Jurisdictional Delineation Report, 2nd Street Improvements, City of Beaumont, prepared by Searl Biological Services, 9-26-2022

Appendix C3 – Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report, 2nd Street Improvements, City of Beaumont, prepared by Caskey Biological Consulting, 9-27-2022

Appendix C4 – Least Bell’s Vireo Presence/Absence Protocol Survey Report, 2nd Street Expansion, City of Beaumont, prepared by Searl Biological Services, 9-2-2021

Appendix D – Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Second Street Improvement Project, prepared by CRMTECH 10-10-2021

Appendix E – Geotechnical Investigation, Second Street Extension Project, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 8-25-2020

Appendix F – Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, Second Street Improvement Project, prepared by CRMTECH 10-11-2021

Appendix G – Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, 2nd Street Improvement, prepared by Cozad and Fox, Inc., 11-2021

Appendix H – 2nd Street Improvement Project Noise Impact Study, City of Beaumont, CA, prepared by RK Engineering, 10-18-2021

Appendix I – 2nd Street Improvement Project Traffic Assessment, City of Beaumont, CA, prepared by RK Engineering, 10-18-2021

Appendix J – Project Plans/Materials, 9-2022

FIGURE 3

AERIAL PHOTO

Source: Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps

SITE AREA

100 City of Beaumont General Plan
Figure 4.2 Roadway Classification

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Carole Kendrick, Planning Manager
DATE January 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt Addendum No. 1 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline (Capital Improvement Projects WW-04 and WW-05)

Description: A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum to the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline to analyze impacts for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project (CIP Projects WW-04 and WW-05).

Background and Analysis:

The City owns and operates the Mesa Lift Station, which is located at the southeast corner of Potrero Boulevard/Castello Lane. The lift station conveys flows from the north reaches of the City’s wastewater system to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Th is lift station handles all the sewer flows generated north of the State Route 60 and west of Interstate 10. The station currently has three (3) electrically driven sewage pumps installed and in service.

The Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project consists of two (2) components; improvements to and continued operation of the existing Lift Station, and construction and operation of two (2) segments of a new 16-inch diameter Force Main in the southwestern portion of the City of Beaumont. Improvements to the Mesa Lift Station will be confined to the existing lift station footprint and includes the construction of an emergency vault, on-site piping, valving, upgrading electrical components within the existing cabinets, and four (4) new electrically driven sewage pumps.

The force main component of the proposed Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project entails construction of approximately 9,353 linear feet of 16 -inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) force main. The alignment for the new 16-inch diameter force main is within the previously evaluated alignment of the 12-inch diameter brine pipeline constructed as part of the Beaumont W astewater Treatment Plant Project. The new force main will be constructed in two segments. The first segment will be installed from

the lift station site south in the Potrero Boulevard right-of-way (ROW), east in Western Knolls Avenue ROW, and connect to an existing 16-inch diameter force main. The second pipeline segment will be constructed from the existing 16-inch dimeter force main in the easterly extension of the Prosperity Way ROW then south in the Nicholas Road ROW to connect to an existing 16-inch diameter force main in Fourth Street.

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline Project (Beaumont WWTP MND) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were approved by the Beaumont City Council on March 20, 2018, consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City approved a modified MMRP on March 15, 2019. The project evaluated in the Beaumont WWTP MND included two components: (1) the expansion and upgrade of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and (2) the construction of a brine disposal pipeline from the Beaumont WWTP to the nearest connection point of the Inland Empire Brine Line located near the City of San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant.

Addendum No. 1 to the Beaumont WWTP MND analyzes the impacts associated with construction and operation of the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project, which proposes upgrades and improvements to the existing Mesa Lift Station and two segments of 16-inch diameter wastewater pipeline. The lift station site and proposed alignment of the force main is within the previously evaluated alignment for the brine pipeline component of the Beaumont WWTP Project. The purpose of the Lift Station and Force Main Project is to provide sufficient redundancy and storage to avoid wastewater backups and overflows from existing and future growth consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan.

State CEQA Guidelines 15164(b) states:

An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) lists the specific conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration rather than an addendum.

These include one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of

new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR o r Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The City, as the CEQA Lead Agency, has reviewed the Lift Station and Force Main Project in light of the above requirements and determined that none of the above conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND or EIR apply.

Therefore, an addendum to the Beaumont WWTP MND is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff time to prepare this staff report is approximately $500.

Recommended Action:

Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt Addendum No. 1 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline (Capital Improvement Projects WW -04 and WW -05); and Direct staff to prepare a Notice of Determination to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder.

Attachments:

A. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project without appendices.

B. Lift Station and Force Main Alignment

ADDENDUM NO. 1
to the
INITIAL STUDY and MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(CEQA and CEQA-PLUS)
SCH # 2018011029

for the

Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade/Expansion
and Brine Pipeline

for the

Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project

Lead Agency:

City of Beaumont
550 East 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 769-8520

Prepared by:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506

December 2022

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Project Description and Setting_______________________________________________ 1 Project Description: _________________________________________________________ 1

3. Regulatory Background and Findings _________________________________________ 4

4. Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form ___________________________________ 8

1. Project title: Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Force Main ____________________ 8

2. Lead agency name and address: __________________________________________ 8

3. Contact person email address and phone number: __________________________ 8

4. Project location: _________________________________________________________ 8

5. Lift Station and Force Main Project sponsor’s name and address: _____________ 8

6. General Plan Land Use Designation: _______________________________________ 8

7. Zoning: ________________________________________________________________ 9

8. Project Description: _____________________________________________________ 9

9. Setting Description: _____________________________________________________ 9

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ______________________________________ 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED __________________________ 18 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) __________________________ 19 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: __________________________________ 21

5. References ______________________________________________________________ 140

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
ii
Figures
Figure 1 –Beaumont WWTP MND Pipeline Alignment ............................................................... 11 Figure 2 – Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 – Lift Station and Foce Main Alignment ........................................................................ 13 Figure 4 – Lift Station Site Plan................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5 – Earthquake Faults ...................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 - Photographs ............................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7 – Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................ 17 Figure 8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas ....................................................................... 61 Figure 9 – Potential Jurisdictional Waters .................................................................................. 62 Figure 10 – MSHCP Criteria Areas, Conserved Lands, and Linkages ........................................ 63 Figure 11 – MSHCP Small Mammal Survey Areas ..................................................................... 64 Figure 12 – FEMA Flood Hazard Zones .................................................................................... 103 Tables
Table A– CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Conditions and Findings ........................................... 5 Table B – Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ................................................ 33 Table C – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .............................................. 111 Table D – Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Groundborne VibrationVibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................ 112 Appendices
Appendix A Original IS/MND
Appendix A.1 MMRP Modified March 13, 2019
Appendix B.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix B.2 Energy Tables
Appendix C.1 Habitat Suitability Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Report Appendix C.2 Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report
Appendix C.3 Focused Plant Survey Report

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
iii

Appendix D.1 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Appendix D.2 Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Assessment

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
1 1. Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000–21177), the City of Beaumont (hereinafter “the City”), as Lead Agency, prepared a Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beaumont Water Treatment Plant Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline (State Clearinghouse No. 2018011029), which was circulated for a 30-day public review period from January 18, 2018 to February 16, 2018, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 (hereinafter the “Beaumont WWTP MND”). The Beaumont WWTP MND and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were approved by the Beaumont City Council on March 20, 2018.

The City approved a modified MMRP on March 15, 2019. These documents are included as Appendix A to this addendum.

The Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline Project (hereinafter “the Beaumont WWTP Project”) evaluated in the Beaumont WWTP MND, includes two components: first, the expansion and upgrade of the Beaumont Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP); and second, the construction of a brine disposal pipeline from the Beaumont WWTP to the nearest connection point of the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL) located near the City of San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. The brine disposal pipeline was evaluated to run from the Beaumont WWTP and traverse west along W. 4th Street to the end of the existing pavement where the brine pipeline will continue north along a dirt road, where it will then cross underneath the SR-60 to Western Knolls Avenue. Alternate alignments were considered to run south of SR-60 include using Nicholas Road, and several currently unnamed roads/dirt paths, after crossing the SR-60, the brine pipeline will continue west within the future realignment of Western Knolls Avenue where it will turn north within Potrero Boulevard as shown on Figure 1 – Beaumont WWTP MND Pipeline Alignment1.

Addendum No. 1 to the Beaumont WWTP MND analyzes the impacts associated with construction and operation of the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main project (hereinafter the “Lift Station and Force Main Project”) The Lift Station and Force Main Project proposes upgrades and improvements to the existing Mesa Lift Station (hereinafter “Lift Station”) and two segments of 16-inch diameter wastewater pipeline (hereinafter “Force Main”) as further described in Section 2, Project Description and Setting below. The Lift Station site and proposed alignment of the Force Main is adjacent to the brine pipeline component of the Beaumont WWTP Project. The purpose of the Lift Station and Force Main Project is to provide sufficient redundancy and storage to avoid wastewater backups and overflows from existing and future growth consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan.

2. Project Description and Setting
Project Description:

The Lift Station and Force Main Project consist of two components; improvements to and continued operation of the existing Lift Station, and construction and operation of two segments of a new 16-

1 Figures commence on page 10.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
2 inch diameter Force Main in the southwestern portion of the City of Beaumont, Riverside County. (Refer to Figure 2 – Vicinity Map).

The City owns and operates the Lift Station, which is located at the southeast corner of Potrero Boulevard/Castello Lane. (Refer to Figure 3 – Lift Station and Force Main Alignment.) The Lift Station conveys flows form the north reaches of the City’s wastewater system to the WWTP. The Lift Station handles all of the sewer flows generated north of State Route 60 and west of Interstate 10. As currently configured, The station is currently equipped with an existing standby diesel backup generator, which will be retained. The station is also equipped with an odor control system that is not operational. The Lift Station currently has three (3) electrically driven sewage pumps installed and in service.

Improvements to the Lift Station will be confined to the existing lift station footprint and includes the construction of an emergency vault with a maximum depth of 10 feet, on-site piping, valving, upgrading electrical components within the existing cabinets, and four (4) electrically driven sewage pumps. Each pump will be equipped with a 160-horsepower electric motor. The odor control system will be repaired by changing the existing media inside the system and doing a functional test. (Refer to Figure 4 – Lift Station Site Plan).

The Force Main component of the proposed Lift Station and Force Main project entails construction (trenching and installation) of approximately 9,353 linear feet of 16-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Force Main that will be constructed in a trench approximately three feet wide at a depth of approximately 6–10 feet. The alignment for the new 16-inch diameter force main is adjacent to the active 12-inch diameter brine pipeline constructed as part of the Beaumont WWTP Project. The new force main will be constructed in two segments. The first segment will be installed from the Lift Station Site south in the Potrero Boulevard right-of-way (ROW), within Caltrans ROW, east in Western Knolls Avenue ROW, and connect to an existing 16-inch diameter force main. The second pipeline segment will be constructed from the existing 16-inch dimeter force main in the easterly extension of the Prosperity Way ROW then south in the Nicholas Road ROW to connect to an existing 16-inch diameter force main in 4th Street. Refer to Figure 3– Lift Station and Force Main Alignment.

Setting
The City of Beaumont is within the San Gorgonio Pass region of Southern California, south of the San Bernardino Mountains, within the San Jacinto Mountains of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. The region surrounding the City is a geologically complex area, in part due to movement along the San Andreas fault, Banning fault, San Gorgonio fault, and others. (AE-A, p. 5.) The Lift Station Site and Force Main alignment are not located within a currently mapped State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. (Converse-A, p. Converse-B, p. 9.) As shown on Figure 5 – Earthquake Faults, a section of the Force Main Alignment crosses the Riverside County designated Beaumont Plain Fault. (Converse-A, p. 9.)
The Lift Station is surrounded by undeveloped land to the north, east, and south. West of the Lift Station site is Potrero Boulevard and west of Potrero Boulevard between Castello Lane and Western

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
3 Knolls is a developing residential neighborhood. (Refer to Figure 3 – Force Main and Lift Station Alignment.) The Lift Station is currently operational and completely surrounded by a block wall except for a locked gate. The site has been previously graded and disturbed and the portions of the Lift Station site that does not include equipment and concrete pads surrounding the equipment is covered with gravel. (Refer to Figure 6 – Photographs.)
The proposed Force Main Alignment follows approximately 1.8 miles of paved and unpaved road ROW adjacent to a developing residential tract, developed industrial buildings, and vacant land. As shown on Figure 7 – Vegetation Communities, the Force Main alignment will traverse within mostly developed/disturbed land and grassland. There is a small section of riparian scrub at the southern end of the Force Main Alignment.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
4 3. Regulatory Background and Findings
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states:

An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

The Lift Station and Force Main Project proposes improvements to the Lift Station and construction of approximately 9,353 LF of 16-inch diameter PVC force main in two discrete segments. As demonstrated in the following analysis, no new significant impacts will result from implementing the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) lists the specific conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration rather than an addendum. These include one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
5 environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The following table presents a summary of each condition in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and how the Lift Station and Force Main Project is consistent with such condition.

Table A– CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Conditions and Findings Section 15162 Condition
Lift Station and Force Main Project
Consistency
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative
declaration due to the involvement of
new, significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects
The Lift Station and Force Main Project entails
the construction of improvements and continued
operation of the Lift Station and construction
and operation of the Force Main. The Lift Station
improvements and construction of the Force
Main adjacent to the 12-inch brine pipeline are
minor modifications to the Beaumont WWTP
project and as shown by the analysis in Section
4 (Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form)
will not result in any new significant
environmental effects or substantially increase
the severity of previously identified
environmental effects.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect
to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the
involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
There are no changes in the circumstances
under which the Lift Station and Force Main
Project will be undertaken compared to the
analysis in the Beaumont WWTP MND. The
proposed improvements to the Lift Station and
construction and operation of the Force Main will
not require major revisions to the Beaumont
WWTP MND to address the Lift Station and
Force Main Project. As shown in the following
analysis in Section 4 (Supplemental
Environmental Checklist Form), implementation
of the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not
result in new significant environmental effects or
any increase in the severity of previously
identified environmental effects.
(3) New information of substantial
importance, which was not known and
As shown in Section 4 (Supplemental
Environmental Checklist Form) of this document,

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
6 Table A– CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Conditions and Findings Section 15162 Condition
Lift Station and Force Main Project
Consistency
could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration
was adopted, shows any of the
following:
there is no new information of substantial
importance.
(A) The project will have one or more
significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or negative
declaration;
As shown in the following analysis in Section 4
(Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form),
no new significant impacts will occur as a result
of the Lift Station and Force Main Project.
(B) Significant effects previously
examined will be substantially
more severe than shown in the
previous EIR
There were no significant environmental effects
identified in the Beaumont WWTP MND. Further,
as shown in the analysis in in Section 4
(Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form),
no new significant impacts will occur as a result
of implementation of the Lift Station and Force
Main Project.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and
would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or
All potentially significant impacts identified in the
Beaumont WWTP MND were determined to be
less than significant with incorporation of
mitigation measures. The Lift Station and Force
Main Project incorporates feasible mitigation to
reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Further, the Lift Station and Force Main Project
will not result in any new significant impacts that
were not evaluated in the Beaumont WWTP
MND.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives
that are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR
would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the
environment, but the project
All potentially significant impacts identified in the
Beaumont WWTP MND were determined to be
less than significant with incorporation of
mitigation measures. Certain mitigation
measures from the Beaumont WWTP MND have
been clarified for the Lift Station and Force Main
Project as appropriate; however, these

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
7 Table A– CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Conditions and Findings Section 15162 Condition
Lift Station and Force Main Project
Consistency
proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
clarifications do not reduce the effectiveness of
the mitigation measures or change the
significance determinations of the Beaumont
WWTP MND.

The City has reviewed the Lift Station and Force Main Project in light of the requirements defined under the State CEQA Guidelines using the Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form in Section 4 of this Addendum. The City, as the CEQA lead agency, has determined that none of the above conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND or EIR apply. Therefore, an addendum to the Beaumont WWTP MND is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
8 4. Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form

1. Project title: Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Force Main

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Beaumont
550 East 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 769-8522
Since an encroachment permit is required from Caltrans, Caltrans will be a responsible agency.

3. Contact person email address and phone number:

Dustin Christensen, Principal Engineer
[email protected]
(951) 769-8520

4. Project location:

The Lift Station and Force Main Project is located within Sections 5, 6, and 8, Township 3 South, Range 1 west as depicted on the USGS El Casco and Beaumont, California 7.5 minute topographic maps.

The Lift Station is located on Potrero Road on Assessor’s Parcel Number: 414-120-031. Refer to Figure 3 – Lift Station and Force Main Alignment.

The proposed Force Main will be mostly located within road rights-of-way for which there may not be an APN. The proposed Force Main alignment may encroach upon the following Riverside County APNs:
 414-120-034  414-120-018
 414-120-039  417-020-070
 417-020-064  417-020-078
 424-050-018

5. Lift Station and Force Main Project sponsor’s name and address:

City of Beaumont, Public Works Department
550 East 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 769-8522

6. General Plan Land Use Designation:

The City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the Lift Station is Urban Village (UV); the Force Main Alignment runs mostly within ROW that is not assigned land use designations. The Land Use designation of properties adjacent to the proposed Force Main Alignment are Urban Village (UV) and Industrial (I).

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
9 7. Zoning:

The Lift Station Site is zoned Urban Village Zone (UV Zone). The proposed Force Main Alignment will be located mostly within ROW that are not assigned zoning designations. The zoning designations for properties adjacent to or in which the Force Main may encroach are UV, Manufacturing (M), and Specific Plan Area (SPA).

8. Project Description:

As described in detail in Section 2 of this Addendum, the Lift Station and Force Main Project consists of improvements to and continued operation of the Mesa Lift Station and construction and operation of two segments of a new 16-inch diameter Force Main. Refer to Figure 3 – Lift Station Site Plan and Figure 4 – Force Main Alignment.

9. Setting Description:

Refer to the Setting discussion in Section 2 of this Addendum.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
 California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans)
 Encroachment permit
 Western Riverside County Resource Conservation Authority  Joint Project Review
 Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
 Water service

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?2
AB 52 does not apply to the Lift Station and Force Main Project as neither a notice of preparation nor notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is being issued.

The City of Beaumont provided “Notification of Tribal Consultation Opportunity” letters dated February 14, 2017 pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) to Tribes that have previously requested such a notice as part of the Beaumont WWTP Project. Letters were sent from the City to six Tribes: Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno

2 Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
10 Indians, and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) requested consultation and the City concluded the consultation process with MBMI on February 16, 2018. Although not formal consultation, the City conferred with the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) on February 28, 2018. The recommendations of the MBMI and SMBMI were incorporated in Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM CR-1.

As discussed in the response to Threshold Vb., mitigation measure MM CR-1 is being clarified to address the Lift Station and Force Main Project. Specifically, references to San Bernardino County have been deleted because no portion of the Lift Station and Force Main Project is located within that county.

Figure 1 - Beaumont WWTP MND Pipeline AlignmentSources: San Bernardino Co. GIS, 2017; Riverside Co. GIS, 2017; USDA NAIP, 2014.
^_
Beaumont
WWTP
San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.SAN TI
MOTE
O C
A
N
Y
O
N R
D

REDLANDS BLVDBEAUMONT AVECHERRY VALLEY BLVDRECHE CANYON RDGI L
MA
N
S

PRINGS RD
1 ST ST
OAK
G
L
E
N
R
D

YUCAIPA BLVD

BARTON RD
4TH STCALIFORNIA STWATERMAN AVEREDLANDS BLVD

HUNTSLNBEAUMONT AVE

NEVADA AVEORANGE AVE
·|þ210
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
·|þ60
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
LEGEND
Preferred Alignment
Alternate Alignments
Inland Empire Brine Line
H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\alignment\alignment.aprx; Map revised 01 Dec 2022Mesa Lift Station and Force Main ProjectI0123 Miles

Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
Figure 2 – Vi cinity MapSource: Riverside County GIS, 2020H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\Beaumont_Mesa\Beaumont_Mesa.aprx; Map created 08 Aug 2022PROJECT SITE
^

YUCAIPA

CALIMESA

BEAUMONT

BANNING

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO
·|}þ60
·|}þ79
§¨¦10
Map
Area
0 2 4
Miles
I

§¨¦10
·|}þ60

PROSPERITY WAY

MINNESOTAAVELOGISTICS WAYCASTELLO LN

OAK VALLEY PKWY
RI
NG
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
NICHOLAS RDDISTRIBUTIONWAYPOTRERO BLVD4TH ST

WESTERN

K
N
O
LLS

A
V E
H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\Beaumont_Mesa\Beaumont_Mesa.aprx Map created 08 Aug 2022Source: Riverside Co. GIS 2020.

Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
Figure 3 - Lift Station and Force Main AlignmentI
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
LEGEND
Proposed 16-inch Pipeline
12-inch Pipeline
Existing Pipes (16-inch)
Lift Station

H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\Site_Plan\Site_Plan.aprx Map created 15 Sep 2022Source: Webb; Aqua Engineering.

Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
Figure 4 - Lift Station Site Plan
I0 25 50 75
Feet

ELECTRICAL
GEAR
750 KW

GENERATOR
ODOR

CONTROL
250,000 gal

EMERGENCY STORAGE
12" FM TO WWTP
16" FM CAPPED

OUTSIDE WALL
MH #1
2 -
1 2
"

FM
8"

F
M
30" SEWER
MH #2
MH #3
MH #4DISCHARGE
PIPING DRY PIT - PUMPS54,000 gal

WET WELL

BY-PASS

MANHOLE FOR

CONSTRUCTION

OF EMERGENCY

STORAGE AND

MODIFICATION OF
MH #4

Figure 5 - Earthquake FaultsSources: San Bernardino Co. GIS, 2017; Riverside Co. GIS, 2017; USDA NAIP, 2014.
4TH STPOTRERO BLVDWESTERN KNOLLS

A
V
E

PROSPERITY WAY

NICHOLAS RDR
I
N
G
R
A
N
C
H
R
D

CASTELLO LN

DISTRIBUTION WAYLOGISTICS WAYMINNESOTAAVEB
e
a
um
o
n
t

P
l
a
i
n

F
a
u
l
t

Z
o
n
eBeaumont
P
l
ain
FaultZone·|þ60
§¨¦10
LEGEND
Lift Station
Proposed 16-inch Pipeline
12-inch Pipeline
Existing Pipes (16-inch)
Alquist-Priolo Faults
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones
H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\Beaumont_Mesa\Beaumont_Mesa.aprx; Map created 08 Aug 2022 Mesa Lift Station and Force Main ProjectI 0 1,500 3,000
Feet

Photo 1
Photo 5
Photo 4
Photo 2
Photo 3
§¨¦10
·|}þ60

PROSPERITY WAY
4TH STLOGISTICS WAYRI
NG

R
A
N
C
H
R
D

NICHOLAS RDDISTRIBUTIONWAYPOTRERO BLVDWESTERN KNOLLS A VE H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\Beaumont_Mesa\Beaumont_Mesa.aprx Map created 09 Aug 2022Source: Wood, 2022.

Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
Figure 6 - Photographs
I
0 0.5
Miles
Photo 1: Disturbed areas and manufactured slopes around station Photo 2: Disturbed conditions inside the existing lift station.

Photo 3: Grassland between State Route 60 and Western Knolls Avenue.

Photo 4: Grassland and developed disturbed areas.Photo 5: Agricultural lands (fallow orchard) offsite from the northwest.

H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\veg_communities\veg_communities.aprx Map created 15 Sep 2022Source: Wood 2022.Figure 7 - Vegetation Communities Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
18 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Energy

Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources

Noise

Population/Housing

Public Services

Recreation

Transportation

Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems

Wildfire

Mandatory Findings of
Significance

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
19 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Beaumont, it is recommended that:

The City of Beaumont finds no substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR is adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.

The City of Beaumont finds no substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.

The City of Beaumont finds substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
20 The City of Beaumont finds substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

The City of Beaumont finds substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name and Title: Dustin Christensen, Principal Engineer

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed below:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measure which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
22 pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
23 New
significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impact
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point) If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?

(Sources: BP MND, Project Description, USCB)
Aesthetics Discussion:
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact The Beaumont WWTP MND determined that the Brine Pipeline would not impact scenic vistas because the pipeline alignment does not traverse through any areas identified as a scenic vista in the Beaumont General Plan, Riverside County General Plan, or The Pass Area Plan. The majority of the Brine Pipeline will be located underground; however, it is possible that portions may be attached to existing bridges or a portion may be installed in a pipe bridge, in which instance these segments will be above ground. In addition, all adjoining features that are required with the pipeline will be located at or below grade, including manholes, air valves, and drains. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, and construction equipment may temporarily impact the aesthetic quality of the immediate areas and may create a temporary aesthetic nuisance for motorists and residents in proximity to the segment being constructed. Construction will be temporary and the construction equipment will move as construction proceeds along the pipeline alignment.

Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (BP MND, pp. 34–35.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The Lift Station and Fore Main Project is proposing two segments of new 16-inch diameter Force Mains parallel to portions of the existing Brine Pipeline within or adjacent to Potrero Boulevard

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
24 ROW, Caltrans ROW, Western Knolls Avenue ROW, and Nicholas Road ROW. (Refer to Figure 3 – Lift Station and Force Main Alignment.) Because the proposed Force Mains will be located underground, construction of these pipelines will result in the same temporary impacts during construction as the Brine Pipeline, from surface exposure, construction debris, and construction equipment.

Additionally the Lift Station component includes construction of an emergency vault with valving and piping, and four driven sewage pumps at the existing Lift Station Site. Because all work will be confined to the existing Lift Station Site, which has previously been disturbed and is enclosed by a block wall on three sides and a tubular steel fence on the fourth side. Improvements to the Lift Station will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

As discussed above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to scenic vistas. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion : Less than Significant Impact There are no state designated or state eligible scenic highways in in proximity to proposed alignment of the brine pipeline. A portion of the brine pipeline will be located adjacent to I-10 near the City of Redlands, which has been designated a Scenic Route by the County of San Bernardino.

Likewise, a portion of San Timoteo Canyon Road has been officially recognized by Riverside County as an ‘eligible’ County scenic highway. Development along such designated scenic highways and roadways is managed to preserve the areas’ scenic qualities. However, all parts of the brine pipeline in these locations will be buried underground within the road ROW. At locations where the pipeline will be constructed outside of existing road ROW, there are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings present. For these reasons impacts will be less than significant. (BP MND, p. 35.)
Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis As shown on Figure 3 – Lift Station and Force Main Alignment, the proposed Force Main will be constructed parallel to portions of the existing brine pipeline within or adjacent to Potrero Boulevard ROW, Caltrans ROW, Western Knolls Avenue ROW, and Nicholas Road ROW in the City of Beaumont. No portion of the Force Main will be located in or near a state designated or state eligible scenic highways, a San Bernardino County designated Scenic Route, or a Riverside County eligible scenic highway. Further, the Force Main would be buried underground.

Additionally the proposed improvements to the existing Lift Station, will be confined to the existing Lift station footprint. This site has been previously developed and is not located along or near a state designated or state eligible scenic highway. Furthermore, the Lift Station Site is enclosed by

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
25 a block wall, and does not contain any historic buildings, trees or rock outcroppings. Therefore the proposed Lift Station improvements will not damage scenic resources.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to scenic resources. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact The majority of the proposed brine pipeline will be located underground; however, it is possible that portions may be attached to existing bridges or a portion may be installed in a pipe bridge, in which instance these segments will be above ground. For those portions of the pipeline that will be buried underground, once construction is complete the ground surface will be returned to its previous condition. Any pipeline segment that is attached to an existing bridge will likely not be visible and as such will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the bridge or its surrounding areas. The segment of pipeline that may be installed in a pipe bridge would not be visible by the general public. Additionally, the pipe bridge would be a temporary (approximately 10 year condition) until Western Knolls Road is realigned as part of Caltrans’ Potrero Road Intersection Project. For these reasons, the proposed brine pipeline will not substantially degrade the visual character of its alignment or surrounding area, and impacts in this regard will be less than significant. (BP MND, pp. 35–36.)
Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Force Main will be constructed adjacent to or within existing public ROWs.

However, because this facility component will be underground, once construction is complete the ground surface will be returned to its previous condition. Regarding improvements to the Lift Station, with the exception of the steel tube entrance gate along Potrero Boulevard, the Lift Station is surrounded by a block wall. Therefore, any above ground improvements at this facility will be screened from public view. For these reasons, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Beaumont Mesa Lift Station Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to degrading the existing visual character or quality of public views. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
26 d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Once constructed, the brine pipeline will not create a new source of light or glare since it will be buried underground, attached under an existing bridge, or placed within a pipe bridge because the installation of new lighting in connection with the pipeline is not proposed. The City of Loma Linda and Riverside County are requiring that construction of the pipeline segments within those jurisdictions take place at night. Therefore, temporary construction lighting will be used in those areas. To ensure that construction lighting will be directed downward onto the area of construction and away from the any adjacent structures or properties mitigation measure MM AES-1 will be implemented. (BP MND, p. 36.)
MM AES-1. Nighttime Lighting: Prior to any nighttime construction, the construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City Public Works Department that any temporary nighttime lighting shall be downward facing and hooded or shielded to prevent light spillage outside of the construction area or direct broadcast of light into the sky.

Through standard City procedures, compliance with City regulations regarding light, and implementation of mitigation measure MM AES-1, impacts with regard to the creation of new light and glare will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (BP MND, p. 36.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The Lift Station is currently equipped with light fixtures that are downward facing and do not spill onto adjacent properties. Any new permanent lighting installed at the Lift Station will comply with the City of Beaumont Health & Safety Code, Chapter 8.50, which regulates Outdoor Lighting within the City. The Outdoor Lighting requirements (Ordinance 1054, March 17, 2015) contain restrictive lighting standards that act to prevent or minimize overall illumination levels, reduce energy use, and effectively reduce or preclude potential light and glare overspill impacts. (BMC Chapter 8.50.) The proposed Force Main will be buried underground, therefore not creating a new source of light or glare. However, as discussed in the response to Threshold I.d, above, additional temporary lighting may be used along the Force Main alignment if nighttime construction is required.

However, because the Lift Station and Force Main Project will comply with mitigation measure MM AES- 1, there will be no new impacts regarding new sources of light or glare.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to new sources of light or glare. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
27 New
significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impact
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
II. AGRICULTURAL and FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

(Source: FMMP, BP MND. BGP EIR, Zoning Map )
Agricultural Resources Discussion:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact The Beaumont WWTP Project is not within areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The brine pipeline alignment passes by farmland of various

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
28 designations including Farmland of Local Importance, Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland; however, the alignment is not within designated Farmland. Therefore, impacts regarding the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use will be less than significant. (BP MND, pp. 37-38.)
Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The Lift Station site is located on “Other Land”, while the proposed Force Main will traverse through “Other Land”, “Urban and Built-Up Land”, and “Farmland of Local Importance” as designated by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. (FMMP.) Therefore, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not convert any Farmland to non- agricultural use.

For the reasons set forth above, the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact The Beaumont WWTP Project is not located within, nor adjacent to, any Williamson Act contracted lands. Therefore, impacts with regard to a conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts are considered less than significant. (BP MND, p. 38.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis According to Figure 5.2-3 Williamson Act Contracts of the Beaumont General Plan EIR, there are no active Williamson Act contracts within City limits. (BGP EIR, p. 5.2-11.) Additionally, there are no areas zoned for agricultural uses within City limits. (Zoning Map.) Therefore implementation of the proposed Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural use or Williamson Act contract.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
29 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? And
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: No Impact.

There are no properties zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production within Riverside County, other than Christmas tree farms (cultivated, not farmed), and such farms are not known along the brine pipeline alignment. Within San Bernardino County, forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production are located at a much higher elevation, typically 5,000 feet. Because the brine pipeline alignment does not traverse through or adjacent to areas zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production there will be no impacts in this regard. (BP MND, p. 38.) Force Main and Lift Station Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis According to Beaumont General Plan EIR, there are no properties within the City limits that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. (BGP EIR, p. 5.2-19.) Additionally, as shown on Figure 7 – Vegetation Communities, there is no forest land or timberland at or in proximity to the Lift Station site and proposed Force Main alignment. Therefore implementation of the proposed Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with existing timberland zoning or result in the loss or conversation of forest land to a non-forest use.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to forest land or timberland. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: No Impact
Work at the WWTP involves upgrades to the system that will not result in changes that would then cause the conversion of Farmland or forest land to other uses. The brine pipeline will be buried underground within disturbed road right-of-way, as well as segments outside of road right-of-way where future roads are planned. As described previously, no designated farmland, forest land, or agriculturally-zoned properties will be impacted by the Project. Therefore, the conversion of land to a non-agricultural use will not occur as a result of this Project, and no impacts will occur in this regard. (BP MND, p. 39.)
Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis As previously stated, neither the proposed Force Main alignment or Lift Station site are located in areas designated as Farmland, forest land, or within or adjacent to areas in agricultural use.

Implementation of the Force Main and Lift Station Project will not result in the conversion of

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
30 Farmland or forest land to other uses because there are no designated Farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land in the City.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to conversion of Farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
31 New
significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impact
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(Source:, BP MND (Appendix A), Project Description, WEBB-A (Appendix B), CARB-A, SCAQMD-A) Air Quality Discussion:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The City is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) prepares the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The SCAQMD sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP’s control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, if a project demonstrates compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections, then the AQMP would have taken into account such uses when it was developed.

Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: No Impact
The Beaumont WWTP MND determined that the proposed brine pipeline will not conflict with any land use plan of the jurisdictions along the alignment by virtue of its underground nature and location in proximity to roadways. Since the brine pipeline will not in and of itself result in any changes to the existing land use patterns in the Project area, the proposed project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and impacts will be less than significant. (BP MND p. 40).

Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Pipeline Project (included as Appendix B.1) was prepared to evaluate whether the expected criteria air pollutant emissions generated as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project would

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
32 cause exceedances of the SCAQMD’s thresholds for air quality in the project area. The proposed Lift Station improvements will be constructed within the existing lift station and the proposed force main alignment will be constructed within or adjacent to Potrero Boulevard ROW, Caltrans ROW, Western Knolls Avenue ROW, and Nicholas Road ROW and as such will not conflict with the City’s land use plan. Since construction and operation of the proposed Force Main and the improvements to the Lift Station will not in and of itself result in any changes to the existing land use patterns in the City, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

For the reasons discussed above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of the SCAQMD Basin AQMP. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Air quality impacts can be described in short- and long-term perspectives. Short-term impacts are anticipated to occur during site grading and project construction and consist of fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction-related vehicles.

Long-term air quality impacts would occur once a project is in operation.

Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

The portion of the Basin in which the Beaumont WWTP Project is located is designated as a non- attainment area for ozone and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM-2.5) under both state and federal standards, and particulate matter 2.5 to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) under state standards. (BP MND, p. 46.) As discussed in the response to Threshold III.a, above, since the Beaumont WWTP Project does not conflict with any land use designations, construction and operation of this project is in conformance with the AQMP. However, because the estimated unmitigated construction emissions exceeded the SCAQMD-established thresholds of significance, construction of the brine pipeline component of the Beaumont WWTP Project was required to implement mitigation measure MM AQ-1 to reduce the emissions resulting from installation of the bine pipeline to below SCAQMD’s criteria pollutant thresholds. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. (BP MND, pp. 40-46).

MM AQ-1. Certified Tier 3 Engines: During brine pipeline construction activities, all heavy-duty construction equipment over 50 horsepower (hp) shall be certified to meet or exceed United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 3 engine standards. Proof of compliance shall be provided in the bid specifications and be verified by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of construction.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
33 Lift Station and Force Main Project: New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact As with the Beaumont WWTP Project, the portion of the Basin within which the Lift Station and Force Main Project is located is designated as a non-attainment area for PM-10 under state standards, and for ozone and PM-2.5 under both state and federal standards. (CARB-A.) The SCAQMD considers the thresholds for project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts to be the same. (SCAQMD-A.) Therefore, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. Based on the SCAQMD’s regulatory jurisdiction over regional air quality in the Basin, it is reasonable to rely on its thresholds to determine whether there is a cumulative air quality impact.

Construction of the Lift Station and Force Main Project is required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions as established by Rule 403.

Compliance with Rule 403 is achieved through application of standard best management practices (BMPs) in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 miles per hour and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. (WEBB-A, p. 2.)
The short-term emissions of criteria pollutants resulting from construction of the Force Main and Lift Station Project were modeled using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0 computer program using assumptions and the default parameters within CalEEMod, to reflect the Force Main and Lift Station Project. The results of this analysis are presented in Table B – Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions.

Table B – Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissionsa Activity
Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily Construction
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Lift Station Construction 1.44 14.90 13.30 0.03 7.54 4.07 Pipeline Trenching/Installation 0.53 5.26 6.40 0.02 0.46 0.28 Pipeline Paving 0.64 6.24 7.91 0.02 0.55 0.32
Maximum2 2.08 21.14 21.21 0.05 8.09 4.39
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Note: aMaximum emissions are the greater of either the sum of Pipeline Trenching/Installation and Lift Station Construction or Lift Station Construction and Pipeline Paving since these activities overlap. Maximum emissions are shown in bold.

The long-term emissions from the Force Main component are primarily in the form of mobile source emissions, with no stationary sources of emissions present. The new pumps proposed to be installed at the Lift Station will be electric powered and the Lift Station will continue to use the existing diesel-powered emergency generator for backup power. According to SCAQMD’s

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
34 localized significance threshold (LST) methodology, LSTs only apply to the operational phase if a project includes stationary sources or on-site mobile equipment generating on-site emissions. The proposed Beaumont Lift Station and Force Main Project does not include such uses. Therefore, no long-term LST analysis is needed, and operational emissions will be less than significant. (WEBB-A, p. 5.)
Because, as shown in Table B – Unmitigated Daily Construction Emissions, construction of the Force Main and Lift Station Project will not exceed SCAQMD daily construction thresholds, Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM AQ-1, is not required for the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Thus there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant including children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory and/or cardiovascular illness. SCAQMD defines a “sensitive receptor” as a land use or facility such as residences, schools, child care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, retirement homes, and convalescent homes where these persons are typically located.

Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Beaumont WWTP MND determined that there are several sensitive receptors located adjacent to the 23-mile alignment of the brine pipeline, which include housing tracks and scattered residential area lots adjacent to the brine pipeline along Oak Valley Parkway and San Timoteo Canyon Road. In Redlands, residential areas, schools churches and parks are also adjacent to the brine pipeline alignment. (BP MND p. 47.)
Short-term emissions will only be generated in the Beaumont WWTP Project area during construction of the brine pipeline and have been found to be less than significant with implementation of MM AQ-1 (see response to Threshold III.b above). Operational emissions were also found to be less than significant, as indicated above. Therefore, the Beaumont WWTP Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation. (BP MND p. 47.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis Sensitive receptors in proximity to the Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Pipeline project consist of existing residential uses. The Lift Station and Force Main Project’s short-term emissions from construction activities were analyzed and were determined to be below the applicable LST. (WEBB-A, pp. 4–5.)

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
35 Once operational, the long-term emissions from the proposed Lift Station and Force Main Project are primarily from the infrequent visits by vehicles driven by maintenance personnel and are considered negligible. Additionally, the Lift Station is currently operational and the additional facilities constructed are not anticipated to increase the frequency of ongoing maintenance activities. Further, according to SCAQMD’s LST methodology, LSTs only apply to the operational phase if a project includes stationary sources or on-site mobile equipment generating on-site emissions. Therefore, long-term emissions will be negligible. (WEBB-A, p. 4.) For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.

The Beaumont WWTP MND determined that brine waste from the WWTP does not have an objectionable odor. Therefore, the pressure relief valves that are required along the brine pipeline alignment will not be a source of objectionable odors during operation of the pipeline. Construction of the brine pipeline presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust during construction in the immediate vicinity of the segment of the pipeline under construction. Odors generated during construction will be short-term and will move along the alignment of the pipeline as construction takes place; thus, construction of the brine pipeline will not result in the long-term creation of objectionable odors. Recognizing the short-term duration and quantity of construction emissions in the proposed Project area, impacts with regard to the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people is less than significant. (BP MND, p. 47.)
Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis Implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project presents the potential for generation of other emissions (such as those leading to odors) related to diesel emissions from construction vehicles and asphalt degassing from paving activities. Recognizing the short-term duration of construction and the quantity of estimated emissions, construction of the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not result in other emissions such as those leading to odors affecting a substantial number of people. Operational odor from the Lift Station will run through the odor control system, which will be made operational as part of this project.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding the creation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
36 New
significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impact
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
(Source: BP MND, WOOD-A, WOOD-B, WOOD-C, )
Biological Resources Discussion:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Beaumont WWTP MND analyzed improvements at the WWTP site and a total 23.3 miles of brine pipeline alignment; 12.8 miles in Riverside County and 10.8 miles in San Bernardino County.

As part of the Beaumont WWTP MND, Amec Foster Wheeler surveyed the WWTP site and brine pipeline alignment and prepared the following technical reports: Biological Resources Assessment.

Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant and Brine Disposal Pipeline Project (the “BRAR”), Habitat Suitability Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
37 Consistency Analysis Report (the MSHCP Consistency Report”), and Jurisdictional Delineation Report, Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant and Brine Disposal Pipeline Project (the “JD”) to document biological resources. The biological study area (BSA) included a 500-foot buffer around the approximate footprint of the brine pipeline. The majority of the brine pipeline alignment is located within disturbed areas associated with existing paved and/or dirt roads, road shoulders, and railroad rights-of-way. Where there is the potential for impacts to occur are in the areas where the brine pipeline may veer off existing roadways or road shoulders. (BP MND, pp. 49–51.) Plants
The Beaumont WWTP MND identified 23 special-status plants that have potential to occur within 500-feet of the brine pipeline alignment. Of the 23 special-status plants the following four (4) plant species are federally and/or state-listed with threatened or endangered status: the slender-horned spineflower, Nevin’s barberry, Mojave tarplant, and Santa Ana River woolly-star. By participating in the MSHCP, most of the special-status species with potential to occur within the Riverside County portion of the brine pipeline are covered and no further action is necessary. The exceptions include narrow endemic plant species, criteria area species, and riparian/riverine habitat, which are discussed in the response to Threshold IV.f, below. Due to brine pipeline design, direct impacts to suitable habitat and special status plants are not expected. (BP, MND, pp. 51–53.) Special status vegetation communities that are known to occur within selective portions of drainages found within the Beaumont WWTP Project BSA include: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, and southern riparian scrub. A fourth special status vegetation community, southern coast live oak riparian forest, is known from the general Beaumont WWTP Project area, but was not observed and is assumed to be absent from the BSA.

Direct impacts to these special status riparian and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation communities are avoided through brine pipeline design. Implementation of the brine pipeline therefore, will have less than significant impacts related to the 23 special-status plant species. (BP MND, pp. 51–52.)
Animals
The Beaumont WWTP MND identified 43 special-status animal species that have a low to high potential to occur within 500-feet of the brine pipeline, the southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, burrowing owl, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and western yellow bat. (BP MND, p. 53.) Indirect impacts from construction noise to riparian habitat would occur only during the nesting season, which is roughly from March 15 to August 31. Mitigation measure MM BIO-2 has been included in the event that construction activities adjacent to riparian areas cannot avoid the nesting season. Therefore, indirect impacts related to riparian birds during construction will be less than significant with MM BIO-2. (BP MND, p. 53.)
In Riverside County, the Beaumont WWTP Project BSA crosses into a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) designated San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM) Survey Area. Most of the potential habitat in this area is isolated. Although suitable habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) is present in certain

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
38 locations within the Riverside County portion of the Beaumont WWTP Project, SKR is a covered species under the MSHCP and no further action is necessary. In the San Bernardino County portion of the Project BSA, the potential habitat for SKR within its historic range is of poor quality, fragmented, and already subjected to noise and vibration from vehicular and train traffic.

Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-5 will be implemented so that the pipeline alignment will be surveyed in San Bernardino County for potential SKR burrows so that they can be flagged and avoided. Therefore, impacts to SKR are considered less than significant. (BP MND, pp. 53-54.)
The majority of the brine pipeline alignment will be located within disturbed areas associated with existing paved and unpaved roads, disturbed road shoulders, and railroad rights-of-way. The pipeline is expected to be attached to at least one bridge (E Street Bridge), with the possibility of attaching to the bridges over San Timoteo Creek at San Timoteo Canyon Road (near West Fern Avenue) and Redlands Boulevard Bridge over San Timoteo Creek. It is very likely that nesting birds and roosting bats will be encountered on bridges. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, work on bridges shall occur strictly in the non-breeding season (September 1st to January 31st). In the event that work on bridges during the breeding season cannot be avoided, Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-3 is included for work on bridges. Habitat is present within the BSA that can provide roosting and foraging for the bat species potentially occurring in the Project area.

Therefore, surveys for roosting bats will need to be conducted prior to any Project bridge activities, as described in Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-4. (BP MND, pp. 54–55.) Although not expected to be directly impacted by the project alignment, the pipeline alignment should be surveyed prior to construction to flag for ponded areas that might support western spadefoot toad and badger burrows. MM BIO 5 will include the requirement for the pipeline alignment to be surveyed so that potential badger burrows and ponded areas can be flagged and avoided by construction impacts. (BP MND, p. 54-55.)
With incorporation of Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5, impacts to special status species are reduced to less than significant. (BP MND, pp. 54-56.) MM BIO-1. Worker Environmental Awareness Program: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the City of Beaumont to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) that will outline pertinent biological issues and avoidance measures related to the project sites and surrounding areas. Such measures will include making sure construction workers and equipment stay out of sensitive vegetation communities such as the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and riparian habitat within any of the drainage crossings. The biologist or designee(s) shall present the WEAP to the construction contractor and each of the construction crews working at the treatment plant and pipeline during a preconstruction meeting.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
39 MM BIO-2. Sound Barriers, Preconstruction Riparian Bird Surveys, and Monitoring along the Pipeline Alignment:3 The City of Beaumont shall retain a qualified biologist (the “Project Biologist”) to direct the installation of temporary sound barriers, such as those offered by Echo Barrier, eNoise Control, and Acoustical Surfaces, between project construction activities and where any active nests of riparian birds have been identified by current focused surveys within riparian habitats along the pipeline alignment (i.e. Cooper’s Creek, San Timoteo Creek and Santa Ana River) during the breeding season for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo (March 15 – August 31). Where nighttime construction occurs, lighting shall be shielded and directed away from riparian habitat.

In order to determine the presence of active nests, the Project Biologist shall perform preconstruction riparian bird surveys and Full-time biological monitoring when construction activities are proposed within 500-feet of riparian habitat during the riparian bird breeding season (March 15 – August 31). If active nests are documented, species- specific measures, in addition to the installation of temporary sound barriers between only the active nest and construction noise source, shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest, including but not limited to, installation of barriers. If construction adjacent to riparian habitat begins in the non- breeding season, but extends into the breeding season, nesting bird surveys and shall be conducted in order to determine if the riparian habitat is occupied. If it is determined to be occupied, then temporary sound barriers around any active nests shall be implemented prior to moving into new areas with occupied riparian habitat. A report of the findings prepared by the Project Biologist shall be submitted to the City of Beaumont for approval prior to initiating construction activities adjacent to suitable occupied nesting bird habitat.

MM BIO-3. Work on Bridges: Work on bridges shall occur strictly in the non-breeding season (September 1st to January 31st). In the event that work on bridges during the breeding season cannot be avoided, the City of Beaumont shall retain a qualified biologist to oversee that bird exclusion netting is installed by a qualified professional during the non-breeding season to prevent nesting on bridges. Netting may also exclude bats. In either scenario, regular biological monitoring will be required at bridge crossings to ensure that birds and bats are not present and/or that exclusionary devices are maintained and functioning correctly. Exclusionary devices shall be removed upon completion of work at the bridge.

MM BIO-4. Roosting Bats: A qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction survey for suitable roosting habitat for special-status bats that will be affected by Project construction (e.g., modification of bridges). Survey shall be done during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine if bat species are roosting near the

3 Subsequent to adoption of the Beaumont WWTP MND, the MMRP was revised to and mitigation measure MM BIO-2 was modified.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
40 work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (e.g., Anabat, etc.). Visual surveys will include trees within 0.25 mile of Project construction activities. The type of survey will depend on the condition of the potential roosting habitat. If no bat roosts are found, then no further study is required.

If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts.

If roosts are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the facility is removed. The surveying biologist shall develop a plan addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures prior to implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave, but not reenter), netting, or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

If roosts of special-status bats cannot be avoided or it is determined that construction activities may cause roost abandonment, such activities may not commence until permanent, elevated bat houses have been installed outside of, but near the construction area. Placement and height will be determined by a qualified biologist, but the height of bat house will be at least 15 feet. Bat houses will be multi-chambered and be purchased or constructed in accordance with CDFW standards. The number of bat houses required will be dependent upon the size and number of colonies found, but at least one bat house will be installed for each pair of bats (if occurring individually), or of sufficient number to accommodate each colony of bats to be relocated.

MM BIO-5. Preconstruction surveys: Preconstruction surveys for the pipeline located in San Bernardino County shall be conducted within 30-days of construction for the following habitat areas:

1. Ponded areas: If any ponded areas are encountered during the preconstruction surveys they should be flagged for avoidance for impacts to western spadefoot toad.

2. Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Burrows: If burrows suitable for kangaroo rats are encountered, they should be flagged and avoided.

If pedestrian or vehicle activity is required in the area of the burrow, load- spreading devices (e.g., one-inch plywood) shall be placed temporarily over the burrows to prevent burrow collapse.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
41 For the pipeline located in both Riverside and San Bernardino County, the following preconstruction surveys will be conducted within 30-days of construction:

3. Badger Burrows: If burrows suitable for the American badger are detected during the preconstruction surveys, they should be flagged and avoided.

Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis A Draft Habitat Suitability Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Report (the “2022 HSA”), which is included as Appendix C.1) was prepared by WOOD Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. WOOD also prepared a Draft Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Pipeline Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California (included as Appendix C.2) and a Draft Narrow Endemic Plant Species Focused Survey Report Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Pipeline Project (included as Appendix C.3). The BSA for the Lift Station and Force Main Project includes a 150-foot buffer around the Lift Station and the 9,353 linear feet Force Main Alignment. (WOOD-A, p. 1.) The proposed Force Main Alignment is primarily located within road shoulder and previously disturbed areas from construction of the brine pipeline. The regular presence of adjacent disturbance from vehicular traffic along most of the Force Main Alignment was also observed.

Work at the Lift Station will be confined to the existing station footprint at the southeast corner of Potrero Boulevard/Castello Lane. (WOOD-A, p. 1.)
Based on the literature review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plants Inventory the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey data, MSHCP documents (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority “WRCRCA”), vegetation mapping, National Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “USFWS”), the Critical Habitat portal, and field visits, 77 special status biological resources were identified within the vicinity of the Lift Station and Force Main Project’s BSA. (WOOD-A, p. 17.) These include 39 plants, 3 vegetation communities, 1 invertebrate, 1 amphibian, 6 reptiles, 17 birds, and 10 mammals. (WOOD-A, p. 17.)
Plants
The following special status plants have low probability to occur in the Lift Station and Force Main Project’s BSA. Occurrence is based on suitable habitat and/or recorded sightings:
(WOOD-A, p.18.)
 Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. urita)
 The Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis)
 Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica)  Hall’s monardella (Monardella macrantha ssp. Hallii)
 white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum)  Parish’s rupertia (Rupertia rigida)

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
42  San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)
Vegetation Communities
The Riversidean alluvial fan sage special status vegetation community has a low probability to occur in the Force Main and Lift Station Project’s BSA in proximity to the southern area of the Force Main alignment as shown on Figure 7 – Vegetation Communities. Occurrence is based on suitable habitat and/or recorded sightings. (WOOD-A, Appendix C.) Animals
The following are special status animal species that have low to high potential to occur in the Lift Station and Force Main Project’s BSA based on suitable habitat and/or recorded sightings (WOOD-A,. Appendix C):
 One invertebrate Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii)
 One amphibian western spadefoot (spea hammondii)
 Five reptiles; Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), (Belding’s) orange throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), coastal (western) whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), (northern) red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), coast (San Diego) horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)
 Nine birds; Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimohila ruficeps canescens), golden eagle (aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (lanius ludovicianus), costal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila Californica californica), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)  Ten mammals; pallid bat (Antozous pallidus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Cheatodipus fallax fallax), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), San Bernardino (Merriam’s) Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parbus), Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), Lasiurus xanthinus (western yellow bat), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californiacus bennetti), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), Los Angeles (little) pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) Of these biological species three plant species and nine animal species are not covered by the MSHCP. (WOOD-A, p. 32.) The three plant species are; white rabbit tobacco, Parish’s rupertia and San Bernardino aster, however they all have a very low possibility of occurring, especially in a location where they would be impacted by the Lift Station and Force Main Project. The nine animal species are; Crotch bumble bee, southern California legless lizard, pallid bat, Townsend’s big- eared bat, western yellow bat, and southern grasshopper mouse. These species also have a low to high possibility of occurring. Nonetheless, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will be required

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
43 to comply with Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 as clarified to incorporate Force Main and Lift Station Project specifics.4 CMM BIO-1. Biological Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program:

Prior to construction, a qualified biologist (the “Project Biologist”) shall be retained by the City of Beaumont to prepare a Biological Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (Biological Resources WEAP) that will outline pertinent biological issues and avoidance measures related to the project sites and surrounding areas.

Such measures will include making sure construction workers and equipment stay out of sensitive vegetation communities and special-status species or nesting bird habitat.

The Project Biologist or designee(s) shall present the Biological Resources WEAP to the construction contractor and each of the construction crews working on the Lift Station and Force Main Project during a preconstruction meeting. The training shall be taped and presented to any construction crew members not present at the preconstruction meeting during which it was initially presented prior to working at the Lift Station Site or along the Force Main Alignment
CMM BIO-2. Sound Barriers, Preconstruction Riparian Bird Survey(s) and Biological Monitoring along the Pipeline Alignment: In order to determine the presence of active nests if work must be done during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), Tthe City of Beaumont shall retain a qualified biologist (the “Project Biologist”) to direct the installation of temporary sound barriers, such as those offered by Echo Barrier, eNoise Control, and Acoustical Surfaces, between project construction activities and where any active nests of riparian birds have been identified by current focused surveys within riparian habitats along the pipeline alignment (i.e. Cooper’s Creek, San Timoteo Creek and Santa Ana River) during the breeding season for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo (March 15 – August 31). Where nighttime construction occurs, lighting shall be shielded and directed away from riparian habitat. to perform preconstruction riparian bird surveys in potential nesting areas three days or less prior to disturbance. And Full-time biological monitoring when construction activities are proposed within 500-feet of riparian habitat during the riparian bird breeding season (March 15 – August 31). If active nests are documented, species-specific measures, as determined by the Project Biologist, shall be in addition to the installation of temporary sound barriers between only the active nest and construction noise source, shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. Including but not limited to, installation of barriers. If construction adjacent to riparian habitat begins in the non- breeding season, but extends into the breeding season, nesting bird surveys and shall be conducted prior to moving into the new areas. In areas where work is already active, any birds building adjacent nests shall be presumed to be unconcerned by the activity,

4 Clarified mitigation measures as identified as “CMM.” Clarifications are shown in double underscore (example text) and strike-though (example text.)

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
44 but the Biological Monitor shall be responsible for preventing impacts to them by stopping work or establishing buffers as needed.

To minimize impacts to special status plant species, the Project Biologist shall flag areas where special status species occur and those areas shall be avoided during construction. In the event avoidance to special-status plant species is not possible, the Project Biologist shall collect seeds from the plant(s), remove the plant, and then spread the collected seeds back into the same area after construction.

Full time biological monitoring is not required; however, depending on the environmental conditions where the crew(s) are working, there may be cases where a monitor is required all day or temporarily for a morning sweep of the site. In order to determine if the riparian habitat is occupied. If it is determined to be occupied, then temporary sound barriers around any active nests shall be implemented prior to moving into new areas with occupied riparian habitat. A report of the findings prepared by the Project Biologist shall be submitted to the City of Beaumont for approval prior to initiating construction activities adjacent to suitable occupied nesting bird habitat.

As part of the Draft Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Pipeline Project, the Lift Station and Force Main Project area was surveyed on six (6) separate occasions; May 5, 2022, May 11, 2022, June 23, 2022, July 14, 2022, July 15, 2022, and July 17, 2022. (WOOD-A, pp. 9-10.) During these surveys no evidence of, or burrowing owls were observed on the Lift Station Site and along the Force Main Alignment or within the adjacent 150-meter buffer. (WOOD-B, p. 9.) However, as shown on Figure 8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area5 approximately seven burrows suitable for burrowing owls use were detected. Although there are no burrowing owls within the Lift Station and Force Main footprint, there is suitable habitat, which would allow burrowing owls to colonize this area. (WOOD-B, p. 9.) Therefore, preconstruction surveys will be required prior to vegetation removal, grading, or any other disturbance within the Lift Station and Force Main area. The Lift Station and Force Main Project will be required to comply with Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-8, as clarified to incorporate Force Main and Lift Station Project-specific guidelines.

CMM BIO-8. Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys: In the areas depicted in Appendix G of the HSA, or within unpaved road shoulders in San Bernardino County, focused Preconstruction burrowing owl survey(s) pursuant to the MSHCP (2003) guidelines in Riverside County shall take place within 30-days prior to any vegetation removal, grading or any other disturbance to the Lift Station Site and Force Main Project Alignment.(CDFW Burrowing Owl 2012 guidelines in San Bernardino County) will be followed. If owls are found during the focused preconstruction survey(s), the City shall ensure that a relocation plan be prepared and approved by the Regional Conservation Authority in Riverside County and CDFW in San Bernardino County

5 Figures for the Biological Resources section commence on page 61.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
45 before disturbance occurs. Regardless of the findings of the focused surveys conducted as part of this measure, there will still be a need for a 30-day preconstruction survey in unpaved roadway areas. These preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl can be conducted during the same time period as any other preconstruction surveys needed for the project.

Because the Lift Station and Force Main Project does not entail work on bridges, contain suitable habitat for special status bats, and is not located within San Bernardino County, Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measures MM BIO-3, MM BIO-4, and MM BIO-5, are not applicable to the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

For the reasons set for in the preceding paragraphs, with implementation of clarified mitigation measures CMM BIO-1, CMM BIO-2, and CMM BIO-8, construction and operation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Force Main and Lift Station Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Beaumont WWTP MND concluded that brine pipeline alignment crosses and lies adjacent to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities in several locations as it proceeds from the WWTP to the Santa Ana River. (BP MND, p. 56.)
Designated critical habitat is located in the Santa Ana River in the area of the preferred alignment for three federally listed species (San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Santa Ana sucker, and southwestern willow flycatcher). No direct impacts are expected to any of these three federally listed species due to Project design to attach the proposed pipeline to E Street Bridge (or alternatively, trenchless method to drill underneath). Equipment may be required within the Santa Ana River to attach the pipe to the bridge, which could require approval from USACE due to the critical habitat designation. As such, consultation with USFWS could be required pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and MM BIO-6 has been added to ensure this happens if necessary. (BP MND, pp. 56-57.)
Design considerations have been incorporated into the brine pipeline design to avoid direct impacts to critical habitat and jurisdictional areas by attaching the pipeline to bridges, using a pipe bridge to span drainage, and trenchless methods to drill underneath. However, MM BIO-6 will lay out the process in case final design of the pipeline demonstrates that avoidance of Critical Habitat areas is not possible. Therefore, given that the Beaumont WWTP project is being designed to avoid Critical Habitat and the project does incorporate mitigation measures to address changed

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
46 conditions, impacts related to riparian habitat and other sensitive vegetation areas, is considered less than significant with mitigation. (BP MND, p. 57.) MM BIO-6. Work in Critical Habitat: If construction equipment is required within a water of the U.S. containing federally listed species or critical habitat for federally listed species, the City shall transmit a pre-construction notification (PCN) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit program (General Condition 18) to provide notice of construction activities within designated Critical Habitat for federally listed species. No construction shall commence until the City of Beaumont is notified by the Corps that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.

Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis As shown on Figure 9 – Potential Jurisdictional Waters, two potentially jurisdictional drainages are located within the BSA. (WOOD-A, p. 9.) The southern drainage is underground in a culvert where it intersects the proposed Force Main; thus construction of the Force Main will not impact this drainage unless trenching for the Force Main is deep enough to affect the underground culvert. The northern drainage, which formerly continued west, appears to have been interrupted by construction of Potrero Boulevard, and the existing housing development west of Protero Boulevard. Flow patterns and best management practices (BMPs) appear to indicate that a potentially jurisdictional flow now travels down the west shoulder of Potrero Boulevard to San Timoteo Creek. (WOOD-A, p. 9.) No jurisdictional waters traverse the Lift Station Site.

As shown on Figure 7 – Vegetation Communities, the portion of the Lift Station parcel, outside of the existing Lift Station footprint, is composed of grassland and disturbed land. Riparian Scrub is located in two areas on the southern portion of the Force Main adjacent to Nicholas Road. (WOOD-A, p. 9.) Although two plant species (Southern California black walnut and Mojave tarplant) and one bird species (peregrine falcon) have potential to occur within a Riparian Scrub vegetation community, the Riparian Scrub vegetation adjacent to the proposed Force Main occurs in created retention basins associated with existing warehouse developments. These areas do not stem from any natural riparian community and are not well developed enough to support special status riparian wildlife species. (WOOD-A, p. 28.) Nonetheless, preconstruction surveys and avoidance, if necessary, as required by clarified mitigation measure CMM BIO-2 will reduce impacts to these species to a less than significant level. As previously discussed in the response to Threshold IV.b, the Lift Station and Force Main Project shall comply with clarified mitigation measure CMM BIO-1.

Because the Lift Station and Force Main Project does not entail construction within Critical Habitat. Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-6, is not applicable.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
47 that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Beaumont WWTP MND concluded that the brine pipeline alignment crosses several named and unnamed waterways along its path, some of which may exhibit one or more of the wetland parameters. The Jurisdictional Delineation Report, Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Disposal Pipeline Project (JD Report) evaluated seven drainage features6 for the presence of USACE wetlands and the limits of CDFW and USACE jurisdiction for non-wetland waters: (BP MND, p. 58.)
1) Unnamed drainage north of Western Knolls Avenue and east of Potrero Blvd. (“Drainage A”); 2) San Timoteo Creek headwaters at Potrero Blvd. Bridge (“San Timoteo Creek (A)”); 3) Unnamed drainage south of Oak Valley Parkway that parallels San Timoteo Creek (“Drainage B”);
4) San Timoteo Creek at San Timoteo Canyon Road Bridge in Redlands near W. Fern Ave. (“San Timoteo Creek (B)”);
5) San Timoteo Creek (a concrete box channel) at Redlands Blvd. (“San Timoteo Creek (C)”); 6) San Timoteo Creek at San Timoteo Canyon Road near Woodhouse Road/Edison’s El Casco Substation (“San Timoteo Creek (D)”); and
7) Santa Ana River upstream of E Street Bridge.

The brine pipeline was designed to utilize trenchless crossing methods by going underneath some of the drainages or attaching to existing bridges. At Drainage A, a pipe bridge is being proposed, and so this will be the only feature to have minor jurisdictional impacts associated with the construction. When trenchless methods are used going underneath a waterway, a frac-out contingency plan will be prepared by the contractor as outlined in Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-7 below. (BP MND, p. 58.)
No wetlands were identified in the Beaumont WWTP Project study area, which includes the abovementioned drainages. The Santa Ana River was evaluated (sampled) for the presence of USACE wetlands in three locations within the active stream channel and one location adjacent to the active channel. All three of the sampling locations contained hydrophytes; one location exhibited wetland hydrology and none of the sampling points contained hydric soils (JD, pp. 5-3).

Therefore, the sampled area of the Santa Ana River is not a USACE wetland. Additionally, as stated before, the brine pipeline project is being designed to have the pipeline hang on an existing bridge crossing the Santa Ana River in order to avoid impacts to the river itself as well as the

6 Refer to the JD Report which is included as Appendix B.1 to Appendix A of this Addendum for a map.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
48 Critical Habitat designations in the River. In the case construction methods will require access to the Santa Ana River, MM BIO-7 has been included. Although no USACE wetlands are present within the Beaumont WWTP Project area, mitigation measure MM BIO-7 will be implemented to provide the appropriate notices and requests for permission from the regulatory agencies for activities within non-wetland jurisdictional waters. Therefore, impacts related to wetlands and jurisdictional areas resulting from implementation of the Beaumont WWTP Project will be reduced to less than significant. (BP MND, p. 58.)
MM BIO-7. Work in Jurisdictional Waters: The project is being designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional areas. If construction activities should disturb anywhere within the jurisdictional limits of a watercourse, the following shall apply as needed: a) notification of a lake or streambed alteration (LSA) shall be given to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); b) a request shall be made to the Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC); and/or c) pre-construction notification to the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Trenchless methods of construction are anticipated and should avoid the rainy season if possible. The contractor shall prepare and have on-site during hydraulic directional drilling (HDD), a Frac-Out Contingency Plan in the event the pipeline breeches or frac-out occurs. The Frac-Out Contingency Plan shall identify the methods to contain released material into the waterway and identify the agencies that will be contacted should frac-out occurs.

Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis As discussed in the response to Threshold IV.b above, two potentially jurisdictional drainages were found in the Lift Station and Force Main Project BSA as shown on Figure 9 – Potential Jurisdictional Waters. However, it was determined that the southern drainage is underground where it intersects with the force main alignment and this drainage will not be impacted unless trenching for the force main intersects the underground culvert. Due to the depth of the underground culvert it is expected that the final design of the Force Main will cross over the underground culvert without impacting the culvert. The northern drainage, which formerly continued to the west, appears to have been interrupted by construction of Potrero Boulevard and the housing development to the west. Therefore, flow patterns and BMPs appear to indicate that jurisdictional flow now travels down the west shoulder of Potrero Boulevard in the Project footprint to San Timoteo Creek. (WOOD-A, p. 9.) Although it is expected construction of the Force Main will avoid potentially jurisdictional waters, in the event jurisdictional waters will be impacted, the Lift Station and Fore Main Project will implement Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure CMM BIO-7 as clarified for the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

CMM BIO-7. Work in Jurisdictional Waters: The project is being designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional areas. If construction activities should disturb anywhere within the jurisdictional limits of a watercourse, the following shall apply as needed: a) notification of a lake or streambed alteration (LSA) shall be given to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); b) a request shall be made to the

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
49 Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC); and/or c) pre-construction notification to the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the event Ttrenchless methods of construction are used, anticipated and should avoid the rainy season if possible. T the contractor shall prepare and have on-site during hydraulic directional drilling (HDD), a Frac-Out Contingency Plan in the event the pipeline breeches or frac-out occurs. The Frac-Out Contingency Plan shall identify the methods to contain released material into the waterway and identify the agencies that will be contacted should frac-out occurs.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts to state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is needed.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact The Beaumont WWTP MND concluded that the brine pipeline alignment crosses several features in both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties that are either known or possible wildlife movement corridors. Within Riverside County, the alignment bisects MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 and parallels Proposed Linkages 5 and 12. The analysis in the Beaumont WWTP MND found that because the brine pipeline will be located underground and construction impacts are temporary and constantly progressing along the alignment, implementation of the Beaumont WWTP Project will have little to no permanent effect on the goals of the MSHCP but may temporarily disrupt usage of certain areas as linkages directly and/or indirectly from noise and other construction activities. (BP MND, p. 59.)
Due to the temporary nature of construction impacts and that creek/river crossings will be spanned and avoided by drilling underneath, attaching overhead to bridges, and installing a new pipe bridge, the finished brine pipeline will not affect the long term ability of wildlife to move in the project BSA. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant related to interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures are necessary. (BP MND, p.60.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis As shown on Figure 10 – MSHCP Criteria Areas, Conserved Lands, and Linkages, the Lift Station site and a portion of the Force Main Alignment are located within portions of Criteria Cells 1015 and 935. Both of these Criteria Cells are located within The Pass Area Plan, Subunit 2 Badlands/San Bernardino National Forest. This subunit contains Proposed Constrained

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
50 Linkage 22, which runs east-west through this subunit and north of the Lift Station Site and Force Main Alignment. As shown on Figure 10, Public/Quasi Public (P/QP) lands outside of the Lift Station and Force Main Project footprint to the west have already been added to the conservation area. (WOOD-A, p. 18.)
Within Subunit 2, there are four planning species: Bell’s (sage) sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli), bobcat (Lynx rufus), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and San Bernardino mountain kingsnake [Lampropeltis zonata (parvirubra)]. (WOOD-A, p. 21.) The following biological issues and considerations are associated with the four planning species; 1) Provide a connection in the Cherry Valley area from the Badlands to Bogart Park, providing opportunities inside and outside of the MSHCP to San Bernardino County. It is recognized that this connection traverses an urban area, however conservation of existing natural habitat and incorporation of ditches or other drainage features into reserve design will assist in providing this contiguous connection.
2) Maintain a wetland connection via Noble Creek. It is recognized that this creek is improved in some areas.
3) Maintain core area for San Bernardino mountain kingsnake. 4) Determine presence of potential linkage area for bobcat. 5) Determine presence of potential core area for Los Angeles pocket mouse in tributaries to San Timoteo Creek.

All planning species with the exception of the San Bernardino mountain kingsnake have potential for occurrence in the Lift Station and Force Main Project’s BSA. However, Bell’s sage sparrow did not come up in the literature review, and bobcat is not classified as a special status species.

WOOD concluded that of the five biological issues and considerations listed above only numbers four and five have any relevance to the Lift Station and Force Main Project. (WOOD, p. 21.) Through participation of the MSHCP, the Lift Station and Force Main Project have little or no effect on the goals of the Subunit, as previous developments have pushed the proposed linkage into San Timoteo Creek at shown on Figure 10 – MSHCP Criteria Areas, Conserved Lands, and Linkages) ( WOOD-A, p. 21.) Since other development projects have pushed the proposed linkage into San Timoteo Creek, which is also the potential habitat for Los Angeles pocket mouse.

Thus, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project will have no direct impacts and little or no indirect impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage 22. (WOOD-A, p. 21.) There are no native wildlife nursery sites within or in proximity to the Lift Station and Force Main Project’s BSA.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding interfering with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
51 Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No additional analysis is required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact The proposed brine pipeline alignment begins in the city of Beaumont and passes through the cities of Calimesa, Redlands, Loma Linda, San Bernardino and Colton (if one of the alternate crossings of the Santa Ana River is chosen), as well as unincorporated areas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Beaumont does not currently have an ordinance to protect biological resources; however, Resource Management Goal No. 4 from the Beaumont General Plan approved March 2007, states “The City of Beaumont will assist in the protection of biological resources.” (BP MND, p. 60.)
As discussed in the Beaumont WWTP MND, the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, and Calimesa have tree protection policies or guidelines; however, because no trees are located within the footprint of the brine pipeline alignment, none are expected to be removed during construction.

Therefore, any impacts relating to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources will be less than significant. (BP MND, p. 60.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The Lift Station Site and proposed force main alignment is located within the city of Beaumont.

According to Beaumont Municipal Code Section 12.12.130 (Tree removal), No person, firm, corporation, public district, public agency or political subdivision shall remove or severely trim any tree planted in the right-of-way of any City Street without first obtaining a permit from the City Engineer. Such permit shall be issued without fee, if the City Engineer is satisfied that such removal or trimming is in the public interest or is necessary for the improvement of the right-of-way or the construction of improvements on adjacent land. He may impose such conditions as he deems reasonable or necessary, including requirements for the work to be done only by a qualified tree surgeon or tree trimmer actually engaged in that business, and for bond, insurance or other security to protect person and property from injury or damage. The provisions limiting trimming of trees shall not apply to any public utility maintaining overhead power or communication lines pursuant to franchise, where necessary to prevent interference of a tree with such installation. A permit for removal of a tree may be conditioned upon its relocation or replacement by one or more other trees of a kind or type to be specified in the permit. (BMC.) Therefore, if a tree is required to be removed to install the pipeline, a permit would be required. Construction of the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not require the removal of any trees. However, based on images of the BSA provided by WOOD and the design of the Force Main no trees are located within the Project’s alignment that would be considered City right-of-way as shown in Figure 6 – Project Site Photos.

Subsequent to adoption of the Beaumont WWTP MND, the City adopted an update to its general plan, known as the Beaumont 2040 Plan. Therefore, the following goals and policies of Chapter 8 – Conservation and Open Space are applicable to the Lift Station and Force Main Project.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
52 Goal 8.8: A City where the natural and visual character of the community is preserved.

Policy 8.8.4 Require the provision of open space linkages and conservation between development projects, consistent with the conservation efforts targeted in the MSHCP.

Goal 8.10: A City that promotes the protection of biological resources through MSHCP implementation.

As discussed in the responses to Thresholds I.a through I.d (Aesthetics), implementation of the Force Main and Lift Station Project will not affect the natural and visual character of the of the City.

Therefore, the Lift Station and Force Main Project is consistent with Beaumont 2040 Plan Goal

8.8.4. As discussed in the responses to Threshold IV.d and Threshold IV.f, through compliance with the MSHCP the Lift Station and Force Main Project will have little or no effects on the goals of The Pass Area Subunit 2, Badlands/ San Bernardino National Forest which contains Proposed Constrained Linkage 22. (WOOD-A, p.21.) Because the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not impact Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 and is consistent with the MSHCP. the Lift Station and Fore Main Project is consistent Beaumont 2040 Plan Policy 8.8.4 and Goal 8.10. Therefore, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources
For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Beaumont WWTP MND concluded that the Beaumont WWTP Project will not conflict with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The City is a permittee to the MSHCP and has adopted the MSHCP as its primary method of protecting biological resources. MSHCP compliance is met by ensuring the Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP will either be met by a project, or a project will not conflict with these goals. MSHCP compliance also includes consistency with Section 6.1.2 - Riparian, Riverine, Venal Pools and Fairy Shrimp, Section 6.1.3- Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), Section 6.1.4 - Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines, and Section 6.3.2 Additional Species Surveys and Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA). No other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is applicable to the brine pipeline. Notably, the Beaumont WWTP Project is located outside of the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP).(BP MND, pp. 61-62.)

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
53 The brine pipeline alignment begins in the city of Beaumont and passes through the cities of Calimesa, Redlands, Loma Linda, San Bernardino and Colton (only if the alternate crossings of the Santa Ana River at Mt. Vernon Bridge or the railroad bridge is chosen), as well as unincorporated areas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The cities of Beaumont and Calimesa, and the County of Riverside are permittees to the MSHCP. Approximately 12.8 miles of the 23.3 mile- pipeline is located in Riverside County and therefore subject to the MSHCP. (BP MND, pp. 61–62.) MSHCP Reserve Assembly
The WWTP is not located in a MSHCP Criteria Cell. The BSA for the brine pipeline alignment passes through two Area Plans of the MSHCP: “The Pass” and “Reche Canyon/Badlands.” The BSA touches on at least 25 Criteria Cells which requires a Joint Project Review (JPR) to be submitted to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) per the City of Beaumont’s obligations as a Permittee to the MSHCP. Since the Beaumont WWTP Project is a public infrastructure project, and the pipeline portion is located underground, this project will not conflict the Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP. The operation of the brine pipeline will not prevent the ability of the RCA and City of Beaumont to carry out the conservation goals of the MSHCP. (BP MND, pp. 61–62.) MSHCP Section 6.1.2
Although there are drainages that the brine pipeline will cross, because trenchless construction techniques and spanning across on bridges will be used impacts to riparian/riverine areas have been mostly avoided by the brine pipeline. A temporary pipe bridge of approximately 60-feet long is proposed to span Drainage A, the construction of which will result in approximately 60 square feet (0.00137 acre) of temporary impacts and 6 square feet (0.00013 acre) of permanent impacts to the upper, unvegetated banks of this Drainage A. The banks of the Drainage A are not vegetated, therefore the temporary impacts are considered insignificant and no mitigation is required to offset the temporary impacts. Nevertheless, since there will be minimal permanent impacts to the banks of the drainage, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) was prepared by AMEC. As required by the DBESP and considered as part Beaumont WWTP Project, the City was required to purchase credits in the Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District In Lieu Fee Program. However, it should be noted that in the near future, Western Knolls Avenue will be realigned in the same route as the Project pipeline to accommodate the new Potrero Boulevard Interchange project. It is expected that the roadways are to be constructed prior to the brine pipeline construction, and the brine pipeline will in reality be designed to be within the roadway. Therefore, most likely the crossing at Drainage A and this pipe bridge will not be needed, and indeed if the roadway is constructed prior to the brine pipeline in this location, then the DBESP mitigation outlined above will not be needed. (BP MND, p. 62.) Although there is riparian habitat within the BSA along the brine pipeline that supports riparian bird species listed in Section 6.1.2, Beaumont WWTP Project design avoids impacting these areas. If the brine pipeline cannot avoid the nesting season, then Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-2 will be incorporated. (BP MND, p. 62.) No vernal pools are known to or expected to occur within the BSA and no special-status fairy shrimp have been recorded in the BSA. No stock ponds, features indicative of pooling, or other

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
54 potential fairy shrimp habitat was seen along the brine pipeline footprint. Clay soil, a frequent element causing pooling due to its impermeable nature, is not known or mapped in the BSA. (BP MND, pp. 62–63.)
Because the Beaumont WWTP Project mostly avoids all riparian/riverine impacts from construction, and given the DBESP measure to purchase credits for the 0.00013 acres of permanent impacts to the banks of Drainage A, the brine pipeline will not conflict with Section

6.1.2 of the MSHCP. (BP MND, pp. 62-63.)
MSHCP Section 6.1.3
Portions of the brine pipeline alignment within Riverside County lie within the NEPSSA survey area for Marvin’s (yucaipa) onion and many-stemmed Dudleya. The BRAR prepared for the Project found no suitable habitat (heavy clay soils and grassy hillsides) for the Yucaipa onion and many- stemmed Dudleya within the brine pipeline alignment. Therefore, no focused surveys for Yucaipa onion and many-stemmed Dudleya are warranted and the project will not conflict with Section

6.1.3 of the MSHCP. (BP MND, p.63.)
MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Consistency
The Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating commercial, mixed uses and residential developments in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Lands. Several segments of the proposed pipeline along San Timoteo Canyon Road in Riverside County align next to and in-between existing Conservation Lands. Therefore the brine pipeline may result in edge effects during temporary construction that could adversely affect biological resources within the Conservation Lands. Although impacts are temporary and constantly moving as the brine pipeline installation progresses, the following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with the JPR process:
(BP MND, pp. 63-64.)
 Drainage: Compliance with NPDES requirements for linear construction projects is required to ensure the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Lands is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. The discharge of runoff from paved areas to the Conservation Lands shall be avoided. The release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might cause harm to the ecosystem shall be prevented through the use of natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance of said devices is required to ensure effective treatment systems.
 Toxics: The application of bioproducts (e.g., manure) or toxic chemicals shall not be discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Lands.
 Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away or shielded from the MSHCP Conservation Lands to ensure ambient night lighting of the Conservation Lands is not increased.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
55  Noise: Noise levels from Project construction shall not exceed the local residential noise standard when near Conservation Lands. Setbacks, berms or walls shall be incorporated to reduce noise, as needed.
 Invasive Plants: Landscape plans shall avoid the use of invasive species adjacent to the Conservation Lands.
 Barriers: Barriers, such as native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate measures shall be used to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping on Conservation Lands.  Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes that are built as part of the Project shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Lands.

MSHCP Section 6.3.2
The brine pipeline partially occurs within the Additional Survey Area for burrowing owl, SBKR and LAPM as well as in a CASSA for Nevin’s barberry, round-leaved filaree and smooth tarplant. (see Figure 5 of HSA). (BP MND, p. 64.)
The majority of the brine pipeline in Riverside County is located in the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. However, given that the pipeline alignment will be primarily in roadways or road shoulders, the suitability of the habitat in the Project footprint is unlikely. Where suitable burrows occur very close to the proposed alignment, focused surveys will be conducted during the breeding season and before construction so that the pipeline can be moved to avoid any occupied habitat. If owls are found and the brine pipeline cannot be designed to avoid the owls, then a relocation plan will be prepared per Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO 8 below.

Additionally, as required by the MSHCP, in areas of suitable habitat, regardless of results of focused surveys, 30-day preconstruction surveys will be required. (BP MND, p. 64.) A portion of the brine pipeline alignment within Riverside County also falls within the MSHCP required survey area for SBKR and LAPM. Potential suitable habitat could be impacted by construction of the brine pipeline at San Timoteo Creek downstream of the Potrero Boulevard.

Bridge. Ongoing disturbance in this area from a housing development and another pipeline project have almost eliminated most of the habitat in the vicinity of the San Timoteo Creek crossing of the brine pipeline. AMEC determined that the road shoulders along the brine pipeline alignment within the SBKR and LAPM survey area does not support suitable habitat for these species. Because direct impacts to the suitable habitat can be avoided by the Project no focused surveys are warranted. (BP MND, p. 64.)
Although some suitable habitat for Nevin’s barberry does occur within the vicinity of the brine pipeline alignment, it is AMEC’s professional judgment based on extensive work in the area, that Nevin’s barberry is not present in the Project footprint and that focused surveys are not warranted.

In addition, because there are no clay soils or known occurrences of round-leaved filaree in the vicinity of the pipeline alignment, no focused surveys are recommended for round-leaved filaree.

Smooth tarplant is known to occur within the alkali-saline soils along San Timoteo Road shoulder in the El Casco area. AMEC did not report any smooth tarplant during their surveys, however,

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
56 given that smooth tarplant likes disturbance, there could be smooth tarplant within the pipeline disturbance area. The brine pipeline will be designed to avoid the smooth tarplant by incorporating Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-9, which requires a biologist to be on site in the El Casco area during construction to remove affected plants. The biologist will then spread seeds of the smooth tarplant after construction.

MM BIO-8. Burrowing Owl Surveys: In the areas depicted in Appendix G of the HSA, or within unpaved road shoulders in San Bernardino County, focused burrowing owl surveys pursuant to the MSHCP (2003) guidelines in Riverside County (CDFW Burrowing Owl 2012 guidelines in San Bernardino County) will be followed. If owls are found during the focused surveys, the City shall ensure that a relocation plan be prepared and approved by the Regional Conservation Authority in Riverside County and CDFW in San Bernardino County before disturbance occurs. Regardless of the findings of the focused surveys conducted as part of this measure, there will still be a need for a 30-day preconstruction survey in unpaved roadway areas. These preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl can be conducted during the same time period as any other preconstruction surveys needed for the project.

MM BIO-9. Smooth Tarplant: The City shall hire a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities in the El Casco area in areas of mapped saline-alkali soils as depicted on Figure 7 of the AMEC HSA. The biologist will advise the construction team on how to avoid any smooth tarplants, if possible. If avoidance is not possible, then the biologist will collect seeds from the plant(s), remove the plant, and then spread the collected smooth tarplant seeds back into the same area after construction.

Through completion of the JPR process and implementation of Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measures MM BIO-2, MM BIO-8, and MM BIO-9 construction and operation of the brine pipeline is consistent with the MSHCP. Additionally, the City is required to pay MSHCP Fees for using the Public Project fee structure set forth by the RCA prior to any ground disturbance. Therefore, impacts regarding conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan will be less than significant with mitigation. (BP MND, pp.64-65.) Lift Station and Force Main Project: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis As previously described, the Lift Station and Force Main Project footprint is located within the footprint of the previously analyzed brine pipeline and the City remains a permittee to the MSHCP and has adopted the MSHCP as its primary method of protecting biological resources. No other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is applicable to the proposed Project. Notably, the Project is located outside of the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP).(WOOD-A, pp. 32-37.) MSHCP compliance is met by ensuring the Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP will either be met by a project, or not be conflicted with in addition to showing consistency with MSHCP Sections 6.1.2 - Riparian, Riverine, Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp, Section 6.1.3- Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), Section 6.1.4 - Urban

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
57 Wildlands Interface Guidelines ,and Section 6.3.2 Additional Species Surveys and Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA).

MSHCP Reserve Assembly
The BSA for the Lift Station and Force Main Project passes through The Pass Area Plan, Subunit 2 Badlands/San Bernardino National Forest of the MSHCP. The BSA touches on two Criteria Cells, 935 and 1015, as shown Figure 10 – MSHCP Criteria Areas, Conserved Lands, and Linkages. (WOOD-A, p. 18.)
MSHCP Section 6.1.2 – Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 that are of potential occurrence in the Lift Station and Force Main Project’s BSA include two plants, Southern California black walnut and Mohave tarplant, and one bird, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Peregrine falcon did not come up in the literature review and the Lift Station Site and Force Main Alignment lack nesting habitat for this species, although it could forage onsite. It is very unlikely that individual plants or habitats for these three species will be impacted by the Lift Station and Force Main Project. If these species are found during the preconstruction surveys conducted under clarified mitigation measure CMM BIO-2, they will be flagged for avoidance per the clarified mitigation measure. (WOOD-A, p.

28.)
No vernal pools are known to or expected to occur within the Lift Station and Force Main BSA and no special-status fairy shrimp have been recorded in this region and none were detected during assessments and focus surveys conducted. No stock ponds, features indicative of pooling, or other potential fairy shrimp habitat was seen along the pipeline footprint. Clay soil, a frequent element causing pooling due to its impermeable nature, is not known or mapped in the Lift Station and Force Main BSA. (WOOD-A, p. 28.)
As discussed in the response to Threshold IV.c, although there are two potential drainages that the Force Main Alignment may cross Figure 9 – Potential Jurisdictional Waters), due to the depth of the southern drainage it is anticipated that the Force Main will cross over it and will not impact it.

Due to previous disruption to existing drainage systems caused by the construction of Potrero Boulevard, the potential jurisdictional waters have been diverted into a created drainage on the east shoulder of Potrero Boulevard within the Lift Station and Force Main BSA. This drainage appears to convey water within Criteria Cells directly into San Timoteo Creek Criteria Cells, and from there into P/QP lands of the MSHCP Conservation Area downstream. (WOOD-A, p. 29.) In the event the Lift Station and Force Main Project cannot avoid the potential jurisdictional waters, clarified mitigation measure CMM BIO 7, will be implemented. For these reasons, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with Section 6.1.2 MSHCP Section 6.1.3 – Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Portions of the Force Main Alignment lie within the NEPSSA survey area for Marvin’s (Yucaipa) onion (Allium narvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). Surveys for these species

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
58 were conducted and the results documented in the Draft Narrow Endemic Plant Species Focused Survey Report Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Pipeline Project. The nearest record for Marvin’s onion is approximately two miles northwest of the Lift Station and Force Main Alignment. The nearest known record for many-stemmed dudleya is over 25 miles to the southwest. (WOOD-C, p. 6.) Nonetheless, because marginally suitable habitat is present, for many-stemmed dudleya, focused surveys for this species are required. Wood biologists conducted the focused surveys on May 11, 2022 and June 23, 2022. Neither Marvin’s onion or many-stemmed dudleya were detected during the focused surveys; therefore, these species are considered to be absent and the Lift Station and Force Main Project. ((WOOD-A, pp. 29-30; WOOD-C, pp. 9-10.) For these reasons, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with Section 6.1.3.

MSHCP Section 6.1.4 – Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface The Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating developments in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas, which may result in edge effects that may adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. (WOOD-A, p. 30.) To minimize such edge effects, the following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. (WOOD-A, pp. 33-35.) For these reasons, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with Section 6.1.4
 Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation area. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
 Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate byproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.
 Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
59 incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
 Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.  Invasive Plants: When approving landscape plans for development that is proposed adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, permittees shall avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of development that are adjacent to the Conservation Area.  Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
 Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with BSA development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.

MSHCP Section 6.3.2 – Additional Survey Needs and Procedures The Lift Station Site and portion of the proposed force main alignments traverse designated survey areas for burrowing owls as shown on Figure 10 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas. As discussed in the response to Threshold IV.a, although there are no burrowing owls within the Lift Station and Force Main footprint, there is suitable habitat, which would allow burrowing owls to colonize this area. (WOOD-B, p. 9.) Therefore, preconstruction surveys will be conducted as per clarified mitigation measure CMM BIO-8. (WOOD- B, p. 9.) The Lift Station Site is also within a designated survey area for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse. (See Figure 11 – MSHCP Small Mammal Survey Areas.) However no potential habitat will be impacted as the area is fully disturbed in and around the existing station. Therefore, no focused surveys are recommended for these species. (WOOD-A, p. 33.) With implementation of CMM BIO-8, the Lift Station and Force Main Project will not conflict with Section 6.3.2
Implementation of clarified mitigation measures CMM BIO-1, CMM BIO-2, CMM BIO-7, and CMM BIO-8 will ensure the Project does not conflict with the MSHCP. Additionally, the City of Beaumont is required to pay MSHCP Fees for using the Public Project fee structure set forth by the RCA prior to any ground disturbance.

Because no portion of the Lift Station and Force Main Project is located within the El Casco area, Beaumont WWTP MND mitigation measure MM BIO-9 is not applicable.

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
60 For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, implementation of the Lift Station and Force Main Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Lift Station and Force Main Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required.

H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\mshcp_survey_area\mshcp_survey_area.aprx Map created 15 Sep 2022Source: Wood 2022.

Figure 8 - MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas
Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project

H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\riparian_riverine_jurisdictional_waters\riparian_riverine_jurisdictional_waters.aprx Map created 15 Sep 2022Source: Wood 2022.

Figure 9 - Potential Jurisdictional Waters
Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project

H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\mshcp_criteria_area\mshcp_criteria_area.aprx Map created 15 Sep 2022Source: Wood 2022.Figure 10 - MSHCP Criteria Areas, Conserved Lands, and Linkages Beaumont Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project

H:\2022\22-0037\GIS\PRO\small_mammals\small_mammals.aprx Map created 01 Dec 2022Source: Wood 2022.

Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
Figure 11 - MSHCP Small Mammal Survey Areas

Addendum No 1 to the MND for the Beaumont WWTP Upgrade/Expansion and Brine Pipeline for the Mesa Lift Station and Force Main Project
City of Beaumont December 2022
65 New
significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impact
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
(Source: AE-A (Appendix D.1), BP MND)
Cultural Resource Discussion:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Beaumont WWTP MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment (Phase 1 CRA) was prepared for the Beaumont WWTP Project. The assessment indicated that Six newly identified linear historical built-environment resources (all road alignments) were documented during the Phase I CRA survey, which includes West 4th Street. The five other newly identified resources include: 1) Beaumont Avenue from Nevada Street to San Timoteo Canyon Road; 2) Bermudez Street from San Timoteo Canyon Road to New Jersey Street; 3) Nevada Street from Beaumont Avenue to San Timoteo Canyon Road; 4) Redlands Boulevard from California Street to South Hunts Lane; and 5) South E Street from South Hunts Lane to 300 feet south of the Santa Ana River. (BP MND, pp. 66–67.) Project archaeologists also revisited previously recorded cultural resources located within and adjacent to the Beaumont WWTP Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) to assess their current conditions. This included San Timoteo Canyon Road, the Gage Canal, California Street, Orange Avenue, New Jersey Street, the Union Pacific Railroad, four historical transmission lines and a telecommunications line. As a result, four additional segments of San Timoteo Canyon Road were documented. The overhead transmissions and telecommunication lines were all found to span the proposed brine pipeline alignment and as such, are located outside of the Beaumont WWTP Project’s APE. While segments of the Union Pacific Railroad fall within the APE, the proposed brine pipeline alignment will cross underneath it (three times) and it will therefore not be impacted by the current Beaumont WWTP Project. (BP MND, p. 67.)
The Beaumont WWTP MND Phase I CRA concluded that none of five aforementioned newly identified historical resources and the previously recorded resources meet the criteria for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Therefore, specific segments of San Timoteo Canyon Road, Gage Canal, California Street, Orange Avenue, New Jersey Street, Beaumont Avenue, Bermudez Street,